Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings continued (Order, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Transport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Aviation Industry

Andrew Gwynne: What steps he is taking to help ensure the recovery of the UK aviation sector following the rollout of the covid-19 vaccine.

Amy Callaghan: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for the aviation industry.

Virendra Sharma: What steps he is taking to support jobs in the aviation sector.

Robert Courts: The Government have provided significant financial support to aviation workers and businesses. The global travel taskforce will report in April on a return to safe and sustainable international travel.

Andrew Gwynne: Last week, the Chancellor set out the support he is providing to businesses until they can reopen their doors, but although the Office for National Statistics showed that aviation was the worst-affected sector, it was not given a single mention. Does the Minister agree that the support already provided to airports will not be enough to cover them losing many times that amount each month? Is he not missing a trick here both to help the sector to survive and help it to modernise to meet our climate change obligations?

Robert Courts: The Government have given the aviation sector approximately £7 billion of support over the course of the pandemic. The Budget we heard last week from the Chancellor extended both the furlough scheme and the airport and ground operations support scheme for another six months. What we are doing to support and help the sector is the global travel taskforce. It is through getting people travelling sustainably and robustly that we will see brighter days ahead.

Amy Callaghan: Duty free arrival was not part of the Government’s post-Brexit consultations, despite industry stakeholders asking for it to be introduced. The Tory Government decision to end VAT-free shopping schemes for travellers will cost hundreds of jobs across Scotland. Establishing arrival duty free outlets could offset some of that. Can the Minister tell the House whether he  lobbied the Chancellor prior to that decision? If so, will he continue to push the Treasury to change its view and save jobs?

Robert Courts: The hon. Member will understand that there had to be a change on that taxation regime at the end of the transition period. All taxation matters are a matter for the Treasury. They are kept under review by the Chancellor at all times, and I am sure he has heard very carefully what she said.

Virendra Sharma: The future of the aviation sector needs greening, which will bring lower pollution and new high-quality jobs. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to increase the Aerospace Technology Institute budget, so that we as a country can focus on developing the technology that will support future zero emission aircraft?

Robert Courts: The hon. Member is quite right that aviation must play its part in the net zero challenge. It is a challenge, but it is also an enormous opportunity. We are already working with BEIS through the Jet Zero Council and the working groups not only on new airframe types and new technology for aircraft, but on things like sustainable aviation fuel.

Gavin Newlands: It is simply not good enough. The Office for National Statistics confirmed that aviation has been hardest hit. This Government promised a sector deal but then did not deliver, barring a last minute and somewhat diluted version of the uncapped business rates relief available in Scotland. Let us recap: ending VAT-free shopping at airports and refusing to consider arrival duty free; the most indebted aviation sector in the world, now about a third smaller with thousands of jobs gone; and now EU cargo and chartered airlines operating in the UK without reciprocal rights in many EU countries—this Government have utterly failed aviation and its 1 million workers, have they not?

Robert Courts: This is a Government who stand foursquare behind aviation, which is a real mark of global Britain. As I said, we have seen approximately £7 billion-worth of support going to the aviation sector. Through the global travel taskforce we will be expanding horizons even further. Most recently, the consultation has been announced on air passenger duty, which I note has not happened in Scotland.

Mike Kane: The Minister is strong on rhetoric, but weak on delivery. First, I thank the Secretary of State for writing to me to correct the record after our previous exchange and confirming how few times the Jet Zero Council had actually met.
On this global travel taskforce, the ONS says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) pointed out, that it will take three years for the sector to recovery. The Airport Operators Association is saying five years. What assurances are there that what the workstreams produce—are there any going on at the moment and is it meeting?—will be robustly implemented? We have not seen that so far with other announcements by this Government.

Robert Courts: I simply have to disagree with the hon. Member. The first global travel taskforce reported in November, as promised. We had the robust release of the test to release scheme in December in time for the Christmas market. Now it is right that we take stock, look at the whole aviation sector, consult carefully and have a new GTT. We will, as we have said, report to the Prime Minister and publish the reports on 12 April, and 17 May is the earliest date on which international travel can resume. We are working with and meeting and consulting the sector on a weekly and daily basis. It is a major ongoing piece of work very much at pace.

Union Connectivity Review

Rob Roberts: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the Union connectivity review.

Grant Shapps: Yesterday, I welcomed the Union connectivity review interim report. It marks an important moment in looking at how transport can bring people together across our United Kingdom.

Rob Roberts: Transport infrastructure is one of the most vital areas of development needed in my constituency. I was delighted to see that improvements in connectivity to the north Wales coastline and the A55 featured strongly in yesterday’s interim report. Can my right hon. Friend confirm when he expects the review to publish its final report, and that there will be funding available to implement its recommendations, even though some cases were not mentioned specifically in the Budget?

Grant Shapps: The interim report did, of course, mention the A55, which my hon. Friend has campaigned hard for. I have released £20 million to carry on further work and studies on some of these routes and the final report will be released in the summer.

Transport Decarbonisation

Deidre Brock: What recent steps his Department has taken to help facilitate transport decarbonisation in line with the Government’s commitments (a) to the Paris agreement and (b) for COP26.

Rachel Maclean: The transport decarbonisation plan will set out transport’s contribution to net zero. We are also delivering ambitious international COP26 campaigns.

Deidre Brock: When does the Minister consider that there will be enough public charging points available for electric-powered vehicles to ensure that no domestic user requires an internal combustion engine? I would settle for her best estimate of when urban motorists could be fossil-free. How quickly does she think the network can be built?

Rachel Maclean: We have ambitious plans to meet our target dates of phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. At the moment, a driver is never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charge point anywhere on England’s motorways, and there are  36 rapid charge points available per 100 miles, but we obviously need to go further. We are working through our rapid charging fund and we will make further announcements very shortly on this topic.

Kerry McCarthy: We know that the Government’s road-building expansion will lead to an estimated 270,000 additional tonnes of carbon entering the atmosphere by 2032. However, in an answer to a recent question, the Minister told me that she was content that the Government’s road-building expansion programme was compatible with the net zero target. Will she tell me how she reached that view when the Secretary of State overruled his own civil servants on the need to conduct an environmental review of the policy? And does she agree that if the Government are serious about reaching net zero and setting an example before COP26, that review should be carried out now?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that we are serious about decarbonising the entire transport sector. We will publish our transport decarbonisation plan in spring this year, as we have committed to do, which will set out how we will decarbonise the entire sector, including roads. I just say to her that, of course, we do need roads, but we want the vehicles driving on them to be electric, and we are investing in electric vehicles—cars, vans, buses and lorries.

Gavin Newlands: Over a year has gone and we have seen neither hide nor hair of this transport decarbonisation plan, or the national bus strategy, or the £3 billion on green buses. In contrast, Scotland is fast becoming a world leader in transport decarbonisation, with higher take-up of electric cars, an impressive charging network, actual investment in electric buses, on which everyone under the age of 22 is now able to travel free, and a much praised rolling rail electrification scheme. Spring is an elastic term in parliamentary terminology. When will we actually see the decarbonisation plan, and when will we actually see zero-emission buses being ordered?

Rachel Maclean: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have invested £2.8 billion to support the transition to electric vehicles, and a lot of that money has gone to Scotland. The funds for the plug-in car grants are available UK-wide, and, as I said, we will publish the transport decarbonisation plan in spring, as we have promised.

Transport Infrastructure Projects

Marco Longhi: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

Sally-Ann Hart: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

Elliot Colburn: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

Rob Butler: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

Mark Eastwood: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

Sheryll Murray: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

Andrew Stephenson: Transport infrastructure is central to the Government’s plans to build back better from covid-19, and the Department for Transport is at the forefront of Project Speed. We have also created our own acceleration unit as well as establishing the Northern Transport Acceleration Council, through which we have identified 112 schemes to progress.

Marco Longhi: My Dudley North constituents are seeing record levels of investment coming to them, and much of it is dedicated to very light rail, metro extension and the new transport interchange. However, connectivity from local housing estates to these transport networks is key. What assurances can my hon. Friend give my constituents that every link in this chain will result in a truly integrated transport system?

Andrew Stephenson: Dudley is indeed pioneering research and development into very light rail, and I am pleased that the West Midlands Combined Authority recently signed off funding into the Dudley interchange. Mayor Andy Street’s vision is for it to be the best-connected region in the country, and the Chancellor has confirmed the £4.2 billion intra-city transport fund, as well as the levelling up fund, in the Budget. I am sure that, with his help, Dudley will get its fair share of transport infrastructure funding. I am looking forward to riding the metro to Dudley Zoo very soon.

Lindsay Hoyle: And they will all go in twos.

Sally-Ann Hart: Investing in improved transport infrastructure is well recognised by my hon. Friend as a necessity for turbocharging our economy and levelling up. Beautiful Hastings and Rye has some of the most antiquated road and rail infrastructure in the country, which inhibits economic growth and is the reason why HS1 must be prioritised.
If we are serious about levelling up left-behind communities, does my hon. Friend not agree that HS1, as promised by previous Ministers, now needs to be delivered? What discussions has he had with the Treasury to ensure that funding will be available to finance such a vital project?

Andrew Stephenson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s determination in drawing attention to this important local issue; this is the second time she has done so this week, I believe. As she will know, the strategic outline business case for the Kent and East Sussex coastal connectivity scheme is currently being progressed by Network Rail, and it is due to be submitted to the Department in April. I am sure that the rail Minister will be able to update her more in due course.

Elliot Colburn: Network Rail has finished developing plans for the Croydon area remodelling scheme to help to unblock the Croydon bottleneck—one of the most congested parts of the rail network, which impacts  300,000 commuters every day on the Brighton main line as well as those in areas of suburban London such as Carshalton and Wallington. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that this scheme has Government support in order to make it a success?

Andrew Stephenson: I know that my hon. Friend has met the Rail Minister on numerous occasions to discuss the Croydon bottleneck and the impact on stations across his constituency. We recognise the importance of the issue and are continuing to work closely with Network Rail and operators to develop the scheme further.

Rob Butler: My constituents are really enthusiastic about a piece of rail infrastructure that could bring a real benefit to their lives. No, they have not changed their minds about HS2; the railway they really want to see is the Aylesbury spur of East West Rail.
However, funding has so far not been secured, despite it being in the original proposals and despite the DFT’s own figures showing a stronger business case for East West Rail than for HS2. Will my hon. Friend commit to working across Government to get funding for the Aylesbury spur, which would reduce car use, cut emissions and help to level up my town?

Andrew Stephenson: As my hon. Friend is aware, in January the Government approved an additional £760 million of new funding to deliver East West Rail between Oxford and Milton Keynes. I know that he has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Rail Minister to make the case for connecting Aylesbury to East West Rail. I understand how important the connection is to his constituency, and we continue to explore the options.

Mark Eastwood: The Penistone line stops at three stations in my constituency—Stocksmoor, Denby Dale and Shepley—and currently runs an hourly service, hampering the connectivity of those villages. There is genuine cross-party support for having the whole of the line upgraded so that it runs half-hourly services, levelling up all our communities. A delivery plan is already in place for this much-needed upgrade, so will the Minister agree to assist with co-ordinating this proposal with the Treasury and the relevant rail authorities?

Andrew Stephenson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, last week marked one year since the Government stepped in to take over the ailing Northern Rail franchise. Since then, Northern has transformed services with a huge investment in new trains and the retirement of Pacers, and completed the extension of platforms at more than 70 stations. He makes a strong case for increasing local services, and I know that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the Rail Minister, will be happy to meet him to discuss this issue.

Sheryll Murray: As my hon. Friend knows, I have long campaigned for the much-needed upgrade to the A38, which is the main trunk road through my constituency to the nearest city, Plymouth. I am working with Highways England and undertaking surveys, but in the light of the fantastic news that Plymouth is to become a freeport, will my hon. Friend revaluate the urgency of improvements, so that the whole of Cornwall can take advantage of Plymouth’s new status?

Andrew Stephenson: I congratulate Plymouth on its status as one of the eight new freeports announced in the Budget last week. Freeports will create national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce, thereby levelling up communities throughout the UK, creating new jobs and turbocharging our economic recovery. We are working across Government to support these exciting developments and will look closely at any changes to transport infrastructure that are required.

Tan Dhesi: Our rail industry must play a pivotal role in fighting the climate crisis with ambitious plans for decarbonising transport infrastructure and extensive electrification. Shockingly, despite the UK’s being the country that pioneered rail, only 38% of our network is electrified—thanks to the Tory Government’s chronic failure to act. We have been left far behind by the likes of Germany, France, Italy and Spain, which have electrified the majority of their railways. Given that we do not have time for further delay and dithering, and to keep costs down, why will the Minister not commit, here and now, to a long-term rolling programme of electrification?

Andrew Stephenson: I politely remind the shadow Minister of the statistics: under the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010, only 63 miles of the railways were electrified; since 2010, we have already electrified 1,110 miles, and we continue to invest.

Ports: New Trading Arrangements

Stephen Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of support for ports adapting to new trading arrangements since the end of the transition period.

Robert Courts: The Government continue to deliver wide-ranging support measures to British ports, including unprecedented levels of direct funding such as grants.

Stephen Morgan: Ministers continue to withhold the vital funds needed for Portsmouth international port to complete the post-Brexit infrastructure mandated by the Government’s own border-operating model. With full customs checks coming in July, what steps is the Minister taking to secure the vital funding needed to ensure that our local authority-owned port remains competitive and prosperous, and that the chaos we saw at Dover in December does not become a reality in my city?

Robert Courts: As a general rule, the “user pays” principle applies, so the Government would expect ports to pay for improvements themselves, but the Government have taken an unprecedented approach through the ports infrastructure fund to support as many ports as possible with grants. Portsmouth was awarded more than £17 million, which is the third-largest amount awarded to any port and is extremely significant funding. The hon. Gentleman’s city is, of course, part of the successful Solent freeport bid, which I am sure he welcomes.

Electric Vehicles

Virginia Crosbie: What steps his Department is taking to increase the use of electric vehicles.

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps his Department is taking to increase the use of electric vehicles.

Andrew Jones: What steps his Department is taking to increase the use of electric vehicles.

Rachel Maclean: By 2035, all new cars and vans need to be zero emission at the tailpipe. We are investing £2.8 billion to support this transition.

Virginia Crosbie: Pentraeth Automotive on my island constituency of Ynys Môn is at the forefront of electric vehicle provision locally. Will the Minister consider providing support so that businesses like Pentraeth Automotive can retrain their skilled mechanics to ensure that electric vehicles can be maintained safely?

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK is at the forefront of the electric-vehicle industry, and I want her constituency to play its part. We are working with the Institute of the Motor Industry to ensure that the UK’s mechanics workforce is well-trained and has the skills needed to safely repair electric vehicles. Through consultation with the automotive sector, the IMI has developed Techsafe, a register and professional standard for electric vehicle technicians that the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles has endorsed.

Stephen Metcalfe: To be able to truly embrace the EV revolution, does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a comprehensive network of on-street residential charging points close to where people live, especially where they have no dedicated parking space? Will she work with local authorities to start this work now, so that that is one less barrier to EV adoption?

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we are already working closely with local authorities. Our on-street residential charge point scheme has so far supported more than 105 different local authorities to fund more than 3,800 charge points. We have recently announced that £20 million will be made available under this scheme for the year 2021-22. We are working so closely with local authorities to ensure the maximum take-up of the scheme, because we do not want a lack of charging infrastructure to be a barrier to anyone wanting to transition to an EV.

Andrew Jones: Following on from the previous question, that charging infrastructure concern can be a barrier to purchase. We know that most owners of electric cars charge their vehicles at home. That often relies on their having a garage or drive, which is not always appropriate or possible in a block of flats or in a very urban area.
Will my hon. Friend keep the House updated on progress on charging facilities in the more built-up urban areas, because that is absolutely critical if we are to see significant take-up of these vehicles?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that we need to tackle all these barriers, which is why we have recently announced that we are changing the criteria for our EV charging schemes to include small businesses, leaseholders and those in rented accommodation, especially flats, to accelerate uptake. Worth up to £50 million, the updated schemes will complement a further £20 million that we are providing for our on-street charging scheme.

Sam Tarry: I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about electric vehicles, but the reality is that we have seen little in the way of concrete measures from this Government. We were promised 4,000 zero-emission buses by 2025, but we have heard little more about that—or, indeed, about the national bus strategy, which was expected months ago and has still yet to materialise.
It has now been a year since the Government published their transport decarbonisation plan. The Secretary of State himself said that
“Climate change is the most pressing environmental challenge of our time”,
yet all we have had is dither and delay. Although last week’s Budget saw the Chancellor freeze fuel duty for the 11th year running, costing the taxpayer about £1 billion and flying in the face of the commitment to tackle carbon emissions, this Government have a legal obligation, lest we forget, to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. When will they start delivering?

Rachel Maclean: Let me politely disagree strongly with the hon. Gentleman on the Labour Front Bench. I would need longer than this one simple question to answer the allegations that he has put to me. Shall we start with the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan? Shall we also refer to the transport decarbonisation plan, which, as I have now said three times, we will publish in the spring. The national bus strategy, as my colleagues have reminded me, will be brought forward very shortly. Not only that, but we are installing charge points up and down the country. We have already committed to phasing out petrol and diesel cars by 2030. We are leading the world in this fight against climate change, and we will continue to do so.

Bakerloo Line Extension

Neil Coyle: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for the Bakerloo line extension since the Government’s formal issuing of safeguarding directions on 1 March 2021.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I can confirm to the hon. Member that neither I nor ministerial colleagues in the Department have discussed this matter with the Chancellor since the safeguarding directions were issued 11 days ago.

Neil Coyle: I thank the Government for safeguarding the land for the Bakerloo line extension. This is a project that will not just improve transport across London, but create jobs and homes and provide a much-needed economic boost for the whole national economy. The next step, though, is that crucial funding. It is disappointing to hear that there have not been any discussions. What  resources have the Department and the Treasury set aside to develop a single preferred option for the extension to ensure that construction is under way as soon as possible, to boost our national economy?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Chancellor has been a tad busy in the past week or so on a very important economic piece for the country. The Bakerloo line extension is a Transport for London project and the issuing of safeguarding directions actually represents the Government’s commitment to fund the project, but it protects the route from conflicting development that could have raised the cost of the project significantly in the future. His question is best aimed at the Mayor.

International Travel: Safe Restart

Antony Higginbotham: What preparatory steps his Department is taking on the safe restart of international travel during the covid-19 pandemic.

Grant Shapps: The Government have launched the global travel taskforce mark 2 in order to help facilitate international travel as we deal with this virus.

Antony Higginbotham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that thousands of manufacturing jobs in my constituency are reliant on the aerospace and aviation sector. What those people need more than anything else is aircraft in the air, flying again. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking with global partners, including looking at schemes such as the International Air Transport Association’s travel pass, to get aircraft flying again in a way that is safe and sustainable?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that mark 1 of the global travel taskforce introduced test to release to assist with this. Mark 2 will introduce travel certification by using schemes such as IATA’s travel pass or the World Economic Forum’s CommonPass. He will be interested to know that I have been having conversations with my US counterpart and many others around the world to get that travel going again. The report will be on 12 April.

Huw Merriman: The Secretary of State just mentioned 12 April for the global travel taskforce recommendations. Is that the date on which the public and the aviation industry will know what the rules will be, or is it just the date when the recommendations will be given to No. 10?

Grant Shapps: The Chair of the Transport Committee is absolutely right; 12 April is the date that we will report back, and we will make it public on the same day. Travel for leisure or other purposes will not resume or be allowed until 17 May at the earliest. It is important that people realise that that is the earliest date, but we are very keen to get the aviation sector that many Members across the House have talked about back in the air, and this is the route to get it there.

Midlands Rail Hub

Karl McCartney: What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the midlands rail hub project as part of the midlands engine rail plan.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Department has approved £20 million of funding for the development of an outline business case for the midlands rail hub. We are working closely with Network Rail to apply the principles of Project SPEED to the development of this project to ensure that it can progress as quickly as possible.

Karl McCartney: It is good to see you again this morning, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. The rail corridor to Lincoln, which the Minister knows well, has a proposed upgrade of signalling at Newark, as well as plans for faster and more frequent trains to my constituency of Lincoln. Some of these schemes are almost shovel-ready and can begin this year. Will my hon. Friend consider these schemes and help Lincoln to receive the train services that my constituents deserve?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Mr Speaker, I think we can both agree that my hon. Friend is a wonder to behold, as he demonstrates to us all that a sensible, coherent campaigning strategy—bringing together people and businesses, and demonstrating the potential economic growth that could result from schemes and infra-jstructure —leads to this Government delivering that infrastructure. One only has to look at the roads around his great city and the direct trains to London for which he has campaigned. Midlands Connect is developing a proposal, as he outlines, and if history is anything to go by, his resourcefulness will help to speed it through the process.

Investment in Rail: North of England

Cat Smith: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on rail investment in the north of England on the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

Grahame Morris: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on rail investment in the north of England on the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

Damien Moore: What steps his Department is taking to invest in rail infrastructure projects in the north-west.

Aaron Bell: What steps his Department is taking to increase rail connections in the north of England.

Andrew Stephenson: The Government are committed to levelling up rail infrastructure across the north. In that spirit, I am delighted to confirm that we have awarded £137 million to Network Rail to complete detailed design and deliver the Hope Valley capacity scheme. The scheme will transform journeys between the northern powerhouse cities of Manchester and Sheffield by removing bottlenecks   on the Hope Valley line. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), who has campaigned relentlessly for the scheme since he was elected and has helped to get it over the line.

Cat Smith: May I take this opportunity to remind the Minister that my constituents in Fleetwood would like to be connected to the rail network?
I heard the Minister’s answer to my question, but I do not understand—perhaps he could help me out here—how he squares that with a 40% cut to Transport for the North’s budget.

Andrew Stephenson: I know about the proposals to reconnect Fleetwood; I know them very well, because they have been championed so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
Transport for the North, which, of course, was established under the Conservatives—has seen its funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail and the Rail North partnership increase year on year. Last year, TfN had funding available to it of £59 million for Northern Powerhouse Rail and of £680,000 for the Rail North partnership. For the next year, both those figures have increased—to £67 million and £700,000. We are getting on with delivering schemes. Whether it be the trans-Pennine route upgrade, the Hope Valley line or phase 2a of HS2 coming to the north of England, we are getting on with delivering.

Grahame Morris: On that very point, will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the Prime Minister’s statement in which he denied that cuts were taking place to Transport for the North’s budget? Does the Minister believe that cutting core funding to Transport for the North by 40%, which is what is happening,  freezing Northern Powerhouse Rail’s budget at £75 million —a third less than was requested—and mothballing plans to roll out contactless ticketing on services like the Tyne and Wear Metro will level up and improve transport infrastructure in the north?

Andrew Stephenson: The hon. Gentleman has been in this House long enough to know that the Prime Minister is always right.

Lindsay Hoyle: You might be proved wrong.

Andrew Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I have just told the House, the budget for Northern Powerhouse Rail available to Transport for the North last year was £59 million; next year it is £67 million. Looking at that funding alone, it has all the money it needs in order to deliver on the priorities in the north of England. At the same time, we are getting on with delivering, with £29 billion invested in transport across the north of England since 2010, while in the Budget we committed to over £40 billion more for transport and rail infrastructure projects, £17.5 billion in renewals and upgrades over the next three years, and £22.6 billion for HS2. We are getting on with delivering, levelling up and building back better from covid-19.

Damien Moore: The infrastructure that underpins the Southport to Manchester Piccadilly service, which serves my constituency, is part of the plan to bring in £400 million-worth of investment and to create jobs.  Does my hon. Friend agree that connecting people to jobs and attracting investment is a key part of the levelling-up agenda?

Andrew Stephenson: Fresh from securing £37.5 million for the towns deal for Southport in the Budget, I understand that yesterday my hon. Friend met the Rail Minister once again to make the case for his local rail services, as he has consistently done since he was elected. I can assure him that the industry taskforce will be doing its utmost to address the concerns he has raised while preserving the core aim of producing a simplified timetable that all passengers can rely on.

Aaron Bell: Newcastle-under-Lyme is the second largest town in the UK without a railway station of its own, and if the Minister gives my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) what he wants, we will be up to No. 1. Keele University is the only major British university without a railway station nearby. Will the Minister welcome the bid that I have submitted to the Restoring Your Railway ideas fund that would solve both those problems with a station in Newcastle and one at Silverdale for Keele University? Will he meet me to discuss the bid so that I can show him some of the details of how it will benefit my constituency?

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend makes a very strong case for his constituency. As he correctly points out, the £500 million Restoring Your Railway fund is one of the many ways in which we are intending to level up the country and build back better. The Rail Minister, as chair of the panel, looks forward to reviewing the bid that my hon. Friend has submitted, and I know he would be happy to meet him to discuss the proposals further.

Transport for London: Funding

Bob Blackman: What recent discussions he has had with Transport for London on a future funding agreement.

Grant Shapps: The Government regularly engage with Transport for London on the impacts of covid-19, and—dare I say?—the Mayor’s management of Transport for London.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the current Mayor has increased council tax by 30%, brought TfL to the brink of bankruptcy with £12 billion of debt, even before the pandemic struck, and now wants to charge motorists for coming into the outskirts of London. Does he agree that it is time for a fresh start?

Grant Shapps: I cannot have my hon. Friend be unfair to the London Mayor; we do have to consider that covid has been a part of that. This Government have stumped up £3.4 billion to assist TfL so far, and we are talking to the Mayor and TfL again. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there was already a £494 million on-year deficit. Now the Mayor, through not having collected or raised the price of fares over the years, is considering a boundary tax to tax people without representation to enter London. It is appalling mismanagement of our rail services.

Cruises

Royston Smith: What steps his Department is taking to allow cruises to safely recommence during the covid-19 pandemic.

Robert Courts: Domestic cruises will restart alongside domestic tourism and indoor hospitality. International cruises will be considered within the global travel taskforce.

Royston Smith: The cruise sector is worth more than £10 billion to the UK economy and supports more than 88,000 jobs. Southampton is the cruise capital of northern Europe, with 500 cruise ship visits per year, each one generating £2.5 million for the local economy. Cruises are covid-safe and they are ready to go, but they need three months’ notice to become operational. Will my hon. Friend work with his colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the Prime Minister’s road map includes cruises, so that operators have the confidence to start booking passengers?

Robert Courts: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the impressive steps taken by the cruise industry in its covid-19 framework, which was published in October 2020. He is right to celebrate the immense financial and employment contribution of the cruise industry to the UK, including to the Southampton, Itchen constituency, for which he speaks so powerfully. I am pleased that domestic cruises in England will be able to restart under step 3 of the road map, which will be no earlier than 17 May. The restart of international cruises will be considered through the global travel taskforce report on 12 April. My hon. Friend is right that travel advice remains a matter for the FCDO, but he can be absolutely sure that my officials and I will continue to engage with that Department.

Transport Devolution Deal: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Daniel Zeichner: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the 2017 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution deal on transport connectivity in (a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Peterborough.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently carried out a review on the progress of the devolution deal, and I understand that the outcome of that will be announced in due course.

Daniel Zeichner: In the Budget last week, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was the only mayoral authority not to get money from the intra-city transport settlement. We are still awaiting the blocked £45 million in housing funding, and we got just 75% of the indicative amount for active travel, when everyone else got at  least 95%. What have the Government got against Cambridgeshire? Isn’t the Mayor a chum?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Mayor is a chum, and I would like to think the hon. Member is a chum, too. The cities eligible for the intra-city fund announced in the spending review 2020 have been chosen with the appropriate governance and on the basis of a range of factors, including population, economic growth rates  and congestion. The Government are already investing substantially in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough through the £1.5 billion A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon upgrade that was completed last year and a devolved allocation of £95 million from the transforming cities fund for 2020 to 2023, and we are also developing plans for a new Cambridge South station and, obviously, East West Rail.

Smart Motorways

Sarah Champion: What plans he has to convert additional stretches of motorway to smart motorways.

Grant Shapps: Highways England is delivering its plan for 2020 to 2025, with sets of all-lane running motorway schemes being delivered over the current road investment period. We have committed £500 million to ensure these motorways are as safe as possible.

Sarah Champion: Since its conversion to a smart motorway, the 10-mile stretch of the M1 between junctions 32 and 35A has seen an average of 68 breakdowns a month in live lanes. Each of these incidents has the potential to end in a tragedy. By contrast, in the three years prior to its conversion, not a serious incident occurred in which a vehicle was struck on the hard shoulder. When will the Government stop gambling with the lives of motorists and abandon these dangerous, ill thought out death traps?

Grant Shapps: I congratulate the hon. Lady for all her campaigning on this subject, and she knows that I share her passion. When I spoke to her a year ago today to explain the 18 different steps involved in the smart motorways stocktake, she warmly welcomed that work. Smart motorways have been under development since 2001 under the Blair-John Prescott Government. I think I am the first Secretary of State in 12 to carry out the stocktake and review, and I will not rest until these motorways are as safe as possible.

Cycling and Walking

Ben Bradshaw: What steps the Government are taking to help local authorities increase levels of cycling and walking.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Government are investing £2 billion in active travel over the rest of this Parliament, much of which will go to local authorities. This is the biggest ever boost for cycling and walking.

Ben Bradshaw: Many local authorities, including Conservative-run Devon and Labour-run Exeter, are working very well together to deliver on the Government’s vision. What will the Minister do about the small number of obstructionist local councils, such as Kensington and Chelsea in London, which, incredibly, does not have a single segregated bike lane in the whole borough and, furthermore, recently tore out a new temporary one that was very popular with local families, forcing those families and children back out on to a busy main road on their way to school?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, who is a new member of the Transport Committee, and look forward to working with him as we move forward on this agenda especially. We have met on this subject previously. He will know that local authorities across the country are doing a marvellous job. Devon County Council has received £1.6 million from the active travel fund in this financial year and is spending it very wisely. There are local authorities that have not consulted on schemes quite as well as we would have liked in the past. We are trying to rectify that, and we are working from the centre with local authorities that are struggling to deliver schemes, to ensure that they deliver them properly, with the appropriate consultation, and that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.

Lindsay Hoyle: Congratulations on clearing the list—that is unique.

Topical Questions

Sally-Ann Hart: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Grant Shapps: We aim to please, Mr Speaker.
Schools are reopening this week, and many more people, including students and parents, are therefore making essential journeys, so I am delighted to announce that today we have released another 150,000 Fix Your Bike vouchers, helping people to get on to their bikes and back into active travel. Each voucher is worth £50 and will help more people get their old bikes fixed and roadworthy again—all part of our unprecedented £2 billion of active travel funding throughout this Parliament.

Sally-Ann Hart: I welcome the news that Transport for the South East has submitted its ambitious 30-year transport strategy, and my right hon. Friend is to have regard to that in setting policy and investment decisions. Decarbonisation is vital, and as Transport for the South East has shown, its ability to bring together local authorities, Network Rail, Highways England and others and act at scale with six other sub-national transport bodies puts them in a perfect position to help deliver our decarbonisation initiatives. What role does my right hon. Friend have in mind for STBs to help bring about the interventions needed to meet our climate goals?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: sub-national bodies are extremely important in helping to bring together what can be quite different, disparate systems within a sub-regional area, to ensure that the transport is effective but also, as she rightly says, decarbonised. I see their role as being pivotal to delivering not only good transport but our transport decarbonisation plan.

Jim McMahon: Last week, I met some of the families of those who have died on smart motorways. I heard the pain and the devastation of those who have been affected by all-lane-running schemes. We last had an update on the number of deaths on smart motorways a year ago. Will the Secretary of State set out what the most recent number of fatalities on smart motorways is?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about public concern about smart motorways, which, as I mentioned before, I very much share. I was the first Transport Secretary to order a review and a stocktake, which published a year ago yesterday with an 18-point plan. Tomorrow, I will have an update on my desk that I have ordered from Highways England, which will give me all the latest data. The last information I have is the 39 deaths between 2015 and 2019.

Jim McMahon: I appreciate the answer, but I do not think it is acceptable at all that the data appears to be at the very least a year out of date about a scheme that has significant public interest and when there are grieving families who want to know the true impact. I ask the Secretary of State to improve and to press Highways England to improve its data collection on that issue.
Yesterday, Highways England launched a campaign that encourages drivers to sing a Pet Shop Boys song as a reminder to pull into a refuge. That reduces it down to an insult, insinuating that drivers who became stranded were somehow careless. They were not. They were the victims of an ill-conceived scheme that still leaves people at risk today. What the families really want to know is, what is being done to ensure that there are no further fatalities? At the last Transport orals, I asked the Transport Secretary to pick up the phone and to reinstate the hard shoulder. Did he do that, and if not, why not?

Grant Shapps: First, the figures to which I refer are national statistics. My understanding is that they have to be quality assured, and it is beyond the control of the Secretary of State to quote figures that have not yet been checked. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s last point about why we do not simply reinstate the hard shoulder— and I know that is his policy—I know from the work that has been carried out that the statisticians, who have worked very hard on this, tell us that per 1 billion miles travelled, which is the way roads are measured, there are about a third more deaths where there are hard shoulders, because one in 12 fatalities actually takes place on a hard shoulder.
As I mentioned before, I am the first Secretary of State to undertake a full stocktake and review. Tomorrow, I will have a report, and I will come back to this House and report on it very quickly afterwards. These are not new things; they were introduced in 2001 by John Prescott. However, I do absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see the problem resolved. It is important to know that, while I mentioned the 39 deaths on so-called smart motorways, at the same time there were 368 deaths on regular motorways, so it is very important that we take all of these steps.
On an education campaign so that people understand how to use all motorways, not just smart motorways, the £5 million campaign was one of the calls of the stocktake. Many of the victims’ families, including Meera Naran, who lost her eight-year-old son, have welcomed the fact that the Government are spending a record £5 million to ensure that people know what to do when they do break down.

Tom Hunt: Last month, I paid a late-night visit to the Orwell bridge to meet the teams who are working on introducing the new speed limit, which will hopefully mean that, when we have recovered from this pandemic, we no longer have to put up with  constant closures of the bridge during high wind, which has a very negative economic impact. I actually went inside the bridge, which is something I did not know you could do, and it was very interesting. Also, the port of Felixstowe is to become a freeport—very good news; Orwell bridge—good news. However, we do know that with a freeport we are likely to see increased economic activity and increased traffic. Will my right hon. Friend commit to the increased investment in our road and rail infrastructure to make sure that we can sustain and support this additional growth and activity?

Andrew Stephenson: I am delighted to hear about the progress that has been made on the Orwell bridge, which was the subject of an Adjournment debate between my hon. Friend and I a few months back. I am also delighted to hear about the success of the freeport bid. Obviously, good transport links will be essential. We will consider the implications of freeports on local transport networks in future infrastructure investment decisions.

Dan Jarvis: [R] Here in south Yorkshire, we are providing free community transport to vaccination sites for those who need it. We are doing what we can, but covid has pushed our underfunded bus network to the brink. The national bus strategy is an opportunity to make meaningful change, so can I ask the Secretary of State to reassure me that Mayors and local authorities will be given the powers and the resources needed to improve our bus services?

Grant Shapps: I know from our many conversations of the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm to get greater control of bus services in his area. I can reassure him, exactly as he has just asked, that not only is that our intention, but—and this will interest other Members of the House who have asked about it today—he will not have to wait very long at all for the bus strategy.

Imran Ahmad Khan: Inter- connectivity is vital to the prosperity of our northern towns and cities. In order to ensure that Wakefield is better connected to neighbouring communities and is more accessible, improving road capacity on routes is needed. Can my right hon. Friend outline whether a Denby Dale bypass between Wakefield and Kirklees will be considered in the third road investment strategy to better connect us with Huddersfield, Manchester and beyond, while relieving pressure on the M1 and M62 around Leeds and Bradford?

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for Wakefield. A bypass for Denby Dale would be a matter for the local highways authority—in this case, Kirklees Council—to consider, but it is something it could consider as a bid into the Government’s recently announced £4.8 billion levelling up fund, which has improving local transport connectivity as one of its top priorities.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go to Christian Matheson—[Interruption.] We will come back to him.

Rob Roberts: With the impending cutting-out of petrol and diesel cars from production in the near future, will my right hon. Friend indicate what   discussions he has had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that cars can be more affordable on a mass production basis?

Grant Shapps: The £2.8 billion referred to earlier is designed to do exactly that—for example, investment in a megafactory or a gigafactory to produce those batteries, which is one of the largest components of bringing down the price so that cars are affordable. It is also worth considering that we already have more rapid chargers per 100 miles driven than any country in the EU.

Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State will know that during the covid pandemic, the number of people using bus transportation has fallen dramatically, partly because of people’s fears, but partly because of the social distancing rules. Does that not make it astonishing that, in the middle of its industrial dispute with Unite the Union, Go North West is now packing its buses to shove passengers in? What will be done to increase bus transportation post covid? Will the Secretary of State have a word with the management of Go North West to insist that it does not put passengers’ lives at risk?

Grant Shapps: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with that situation, so I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention, and I assure him that I will look into it this afternoon. On the wider point, he is right to say that right now people are being told to stay at home and avoid travelling. We must do a lot of work to encourage people back on to our public transport—it is important we do that—and as I have hinted to others, he will not have to wait long for a national bus strategy, which I hope will answer all his questions.

Mary Robinson: Following Cheadle’s successful town’s fund bid, I am pulling together an industry working group to collaborate on the delivery of our new £8 million train station proposal. I look forward to working with representatives from Stockport Council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Network Rail, and Transport for Greater Manchester to restore connectivity, and put Cheadle on the public transport map. Will the Minister agree to meet me to explore opportunities for support from his Department, and help drive that exciting transport project forward?

Andrew Stephenson: The Department is considering my hon. Friend’s ideas fund bid for the East Didsbury to Stockport Metrolink line. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as part of the assessment process, and I am sure my hon. Friend the rail Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us return to Christian Matheson.

Chris Matheson: We will try again, Mr Speaker. I was pleased with the Hendy report on cross border connectivity, which talked about improving the north Wales coastline and access to HS2. Central to that is the Chester to Crewe line. Why not crack on now with electrifying and upgrading  that line, and with the track re-layout as part of the Growth Track 360 project at Chester? Will the Minister commit to that?

Andrew Stephenson: It was worth the wait—it is always a delight to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that as part of the integrated rail plan we are looking at a range of major investments across the north of England. I am keen to see connections to Crewe enhanced, and Royal Assent has now been given for phase 2a that will take HS2 into Crewe. We have also been consulting with the Crewe north connection on further investments, as part of the design refinement consultation for HS2’s western leg into Manchester. I am keen to speak to the hon. Gentleman about this issue. I have been working with local stakeholders, I have met Growth Track 360, and I am keen for us to work together to achieve this.

Ian Mearns: [R] On Wednesday 10 February, in answer to my question, the Prime Minister said:
“I can certainly confirm that we are going to develop the eastern leg as well as the whole of …HS2”—[Official Report, 10 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 325.]
but an implied threat was posed to that in the National Infrastructure Commission report, so in order to adhere fully to the Prime Minister’s commitment, can the Secretary of State tell us when work on the eastern leg of HS2 will start, so that the promises of his predecessors and the Prime Minister to the people of the north and the north-east can be fully fulfilled?

Andrew Stephenson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister said that it is not a case of to be or not to be. We are committed to bringing the benefits of high-speed rail to the north of England and work on the integrated rail plan is progressing well, but Ministers need to take their time to fully consider all the evidence from all stakeholders, including the National Infrastructure Commission and the Government’s own analysis, before finalising the plans. We therefore hope to publish the IRP this spring.

Richard Fuller: People in Bedfordshire who commute to London on the Bedford midland main line can already take advantage of flexible season tickets or carnet tickets, but my constituents who use stations in Arlesey, Sandy and Biggleswade cannot. When will my hon. Friend come forward with flexible season tickets, so that all my constituents can take advantage of them?

Andrew Stephenson: The Government recognise that changes in travel patterns, which have been accelerated by covid-19, need to be reflected, and we need to accommodate them in a more flexible style of working and travelling. We understand concerns about the cost of some rail fares and the impact that can have on people’s budgets. The Department is actively working with train operators to develop a solution that offers better value and convenience for those who commute flexibly, including on GTR routes, and we will provide a further update on that as part of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for my second bite at the cherry this morning. I am deeply concerned that the  traffic policy in my constituency is pushing more traffic on to arterial routes and disproportionately risking the health of the poorer and BAME residents there. What monitoring are the Government doing to ensure that well-intentioned pollution-cutting measures do not shift the problem on to the most vulnerable?

Grant Shapps: I am very sorry to hear about what the hon. Gentleman’s local Labour council has been doing with the traffic situation there. I will ensure that the Roads Minister meets urgently with Ealing Council to try to address his concerns, and those of other Ealing Members, over their traffic process.

Philip Hollobone: [R] Will Transport Ministers ensure that funding for a new junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering is provided in road investment strategy 3? Otherwise, with 2,700 new houses expected to have been built in the new Hanwood Park development by that time, traffic will grind to a halt in Kettering, Barton Seagrave and Burton Latimer.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I believe he met my noble Friend the Roads Minister just last week to press the case once again. Highways England is undertaking a full technical review of the options for that junction, to obtain certainty over project costs. That will inform future decisions about how to proceed.

David Linden: We know that as a result of the disruption caused by the pandemic, many driving students have had to double-pay fees for a driving test. When pressed on that, the Department said that the Road Traffic Act 1988 forbids refunds. Will the Secretary of State therefore support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the Driving Tests (Repayment of Test Fees) Bill?

Grant Shapps: Driving tests are among the many things for which there is a big backlog due to the pandemic. I know that because my children are desperate to take their driving tests—or will be shortly. We are  doing everything we can to bring them forward, particularly so that people who have already taken their theory test do not end up in a position where they have to pay again. We are doing everything we can. We have already extended the period of time. We have an issue in that we do not want people to take their practical test with a theory test that is so old that it would create new dangers on the roads, but I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Simon Jupp: Exeter airport in my constituency of East Devon will continue to access bespoke support following last week’s Budget and I thank Ministers for engaging with me over the past year. Of course, we continue to grapple with the pandemic. Passenger numbers are down 90% at Exeter airport, and it is clear that long-term solutions will be needed to ensure the recovery of my regional airport and many others across the nation. Please will the Secretary of State provide an update on the progress made so far towards the Government’s aviation recovery plan and say when it will be published?

Grant Shapps: On 12 April, my hon. Friend can look forward to seeing that report published. We will ensure that it contains a route not only out of lockdown for travel but, all being well, and as long the vaccination programme is going as it is at the moment here and internationally, for international travel. I stress to the House that while we are in control of our vaccination programme—44% of our adult population are now vaccinated—we do not have control over other countries’ vaccinations. That is why we think we will require a combination of vaccination and testing for international travel to work again. There is a lot to be done. We are working hard, along with my hon. Friend the Aviation Minister, and we will report back to the House on 12 April.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for five minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I would like to make a statement. All members of the parliamentary community will have been deeply affected by the distressing news relating to Sarah Everard. The House service will be issuing a clarification for the media about certain matters which have been reported. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that it is extremely important now to exercise caution and avoid references to any ongoing investigation. Although the matter is not at this stage formally covered by the House’s sub judice resolution, we all need to be very careful to make sure we do not say anything which could prejudice any such investigation.
Before we come to the business question, I also want to make a statement following the point of order that was raised at the end of yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions by the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) concerning the accuracy of the statement made by the Prime Minister. I want to make it clear what my responsibility is with regard to answers, and what the responsibilities are of those giving them. It is long established that the Speaker is not, and cannot be, responsible for the content of ministerial answers. “Erskine May” says:
“The Speaker’s responsibility for questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House. Responsibility in other respects rests with the Member who proposes to ask the question, and responsibility for answers rests with Ministers.”
All Members should correct the record if they make an inaccurate statement to the House. They can do so by raising a point of order or in debate, or, in the case of Ministers, they can make a statement or issue a written ministerial statement. The Government’s own ministerial code could not be clearer about what is expected of Ministers. It says:
“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
The Speaker cannot be dragged into arguments about whether a statement is inaccurate or not. This is a matter of political debate. All Members of this House are honourable. They must take responsibility for correcting the record if a mistake has been made. It is not dishonourable to make a mistake, but to seek to avoid admitting one is a different matter.
I said when I was elected Speaker that we needed to treat each other and the electorate with respect. What I have talked about today is an important part of that, and I hope all Members will act in that spirit. I have been very clear, and so I do not wish to take points of order on this matter now. If necessary, I have no doubt that we will return to this issue some time in the future.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 15 March will include:
Monday 15 March—Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 16 March—Conclusion of the Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing And Courts Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 17 March—Opposition day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 18 March—Debate on a motion on the UK’s commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, followed by a general debate on World Water Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 19 March—The House may sit on Friday 19 March for further consideration of private Members’ Bills. This is subject to the progress of business and to the approval of a sittings motion.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 March will include:
Monday 22 March—Consideration of Lords amendments, including consideration of Lords message to the Trade Bill, followed by the remaining stages of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords].

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. I hope he will join me in wishing for speedy boarding of the private Members’ Bills on Friday, with no disruption.
I know that the Leader of the House takes seriously a lack of responses to hon. Members from Government Departments. He will be concerned to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) has not received a response from the Department of Health and Social Care to a question from 9 October, or to two from 19 October. I know she has written to the Leader of the House. Can we ensure that she gets a response?
The Leader of the House is very keen to have us back here, but we seem to be having a lot more Zoom meetings. The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is having a Zoom meeting, and the chair of the Trade and Agriculture Commission has invited us to a Zoom meeting. It is quite difficult in terms of accountability, because not everybody can join these meetings. In addition, the Official Reporters work very hard to make sure that things are on the record. In keeping with what you have just said, Mr Speaker, we need to ensure that things are on the record, and the relevant people need to come to the House to provide accountability.
My hon. Friend the shadow Housing Minister has asked where the Building Safety Bill is. It was published in draft on 20 July, but it has not had its First Reading. It contains important improvements for the safety of residents in high-rise buildings and the building safety regulator. May we have an update?
I know that the Leader of the House will be concerned about the National Audit Office report on local government finances during the pandemic, which was published yesterday, 10 March. Many face significant gaps in funding. We are talking about statutory services such as adult social care and special needs libraries; all those may have to be cut. The shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said that councils have lost 60% of their funding in the last decade. Will the Leader of the House confirm that we will have a debate on the NAO report in Government time, particularly as our constituents may have to pay for it in the 5% council tax increase?
We also need a statement on whether councils are actually getting, pound for pound, what they have spent during the pandemic. We know that the Government have got the money, because they had £37 billion for Test and Trace. I know that the Leader of the House, because he is very keen on making sure that public money is spent wisely, will want to debate the Public Accounts Committee report on Test and Trace, which was published yesterday. It said that there is
“no clear evidence to judge”
the “overall effectiveness” of Test and Trace. It was supposed to be a game changer. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has said that
“test and trace was having only a marginal impact on transmission”
and the NAO said that there was low compliance, yet there is £37 billion of committed expenditure. We now have Serco, one of the companies involved, paying out dividends to its directors. That is appalling.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement. I am going to ask the Leader of the House whether he will correct the record. Will he write and place a letter in the Library, having checked the Official Report from January 2020 to see what exactly the Opposition did? I will repeat it again. The shadow Secretary of State for Health said, “The House will not be divided on this.”
Let us see what the Minister said. He said that 1% for nurses’ pay would cost three quarters of a billion pounds, so—this is a rough calculation—2.1% would cost £1.5 billion. We know that the £37 billion is in the accounts of the Department of Health and Social Care. The head of NHS England said that 2.1% was allocated when the funding was agreed in 2018. We cannot trust the Government now to keep their word, to protect the NHS, or with the finances. May we have a statement on Monday clearing all this up, as the press secretary apparently cannot, or will not, announce it from the £2.9 million bunker?
It is wonderful news that Nazanin has had her tag taken off and that she will hopefully be home soon. There is no word on Anousheh. He was a dutiful son who was visiting his mother. Kylie Moore-Gilbert has said that if her ordeal was made public, she would not have had a 10-year sentence.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for celebrating International Women’s Day and Commonwealth Day on Monday. It is Mothering Sunday on Sunday. I do not know whether you are aware of the survey by the Office for National Statistics, which said that, in the pandemic, women spent more time on household chores than men, and that three quarters of women were emergency educating compared with just over half of men. A Mumsnet survey found that women are worried that women’s equality is
“going back to the 1970s”
at work and home, and in society. We wish everyone a happy Mothering Sunday, and our thoughts go out to Sarah Everard’s family.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed our thoughts do go out to Sarah Everard’s family. The right hon. Lady is right to raise that and the more general point about the burden that has fallen on women during the pandemic. That is a point very fairly and well made, and the men of the United Kingdom should be very grateful for that. It has been a very difficult time for many families.
I share the right hon. Lady’s pleasure that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has had her tag removed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to the President of Iran and made absolutely clear that there is no reason to hold, detain or keep Nazanin any longer. She ought to be free to leave. As the right hon. Lady knows, this is an issue that the Government take very seriously and have been working on consistently, and we must and will continue to do so.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that it would be good if the private Members’ Bills that are down for tomorrow were attended to speedily, though that is out of my hands. I do know some of the tricks of the trade when it comes to filibustering, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not feel that they wish to use those tricks of the trade next week.
The right hon. Lady made the point that people coming to the House to make statements that are on the record is better than endless Zoom calls. That is quite right. I think that Zoom calls do have a place and it is very helpful to give cross-party briefings, but the Floor of the House is where the real business takes place.
As regards the draft Building Safety Bill, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is certainly working on that. That is a matter of Government policy and the Government intend to bring that forward.
Moving on to the right hon. Lady’s more contentious questions, starting with support for local councils, £35 billion is not bad going, is it? It is helpful to councils up and down the country, and £4.6 billion of that has been un-ringfenced, so there has been very, very considerable support. That has gone across the country, so £9.5 billion has gone to the north, with £6 billion for the midlands, £7 billion for London and £4 billion for the south-west. Councils have received huge financial support from the taxpayer. Ultimately, there is only one taxpayer and how taxes are paid is merely a question of how we divide it up. Great support has been given.
As regards Test and Trace, it has done astonishing things. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is aware that 9.1 million people have been contacted, thanks to Test and Trace, who might otherwise have spread the virus. We are carrying out a minimum of 750,000 tests a day, and with the return to school and the lateral flow tests, that has gone to over 1 million in recent days. People are being contacted. They are being tested and, yes, of course this involves the private sector, but the private sector is part of how our economy is structured. We cannot say with any sense of reasonableness that the drug companies—big pharma—that have helped us to get the vaccine are marvellous, but that the companies involved in the roll-out of Test and Trace are somehow improper. They are not. They have done a fantastic job  and it is a considerable success, in spite of what the much-respected Public Accounts Committee has to say. Even Homer nods, would be my answer to that.
Regarding the issue of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s comments, the right hon. Lady seemed to change the goalposts a bit. She started talking about a vote a year ago, whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to something two years ago, so there is a lack of clarity about what on earth the Opposition are asking about. If the Opposition cannot bring themselves to answer clear questions, it is not surprising that they then do not understand the answer.

Valerie Vaz: Can you clear it up then?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am delighted to clear it up. Her Majesty’s Opposition voted against the Queen’s Speech at the beginning of this Session. The increases that this Government proposed in NHS funding were a centrepiece of the Gracious Speech, and their votes against the Queen’s Speech were an attempt to stifle the Government’s agenda before it had even begun. The Queen’s Speech made clear our intention to establish in law for the first time the NHS’s multi-year funding settlement, a testament to how seriously the Government take funding the NHS. We have delivered a 12.8% increase in nurses’ pay over three years and we are seeing a 34% increase in nurses’ applications. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not ask about a Bill. He asked about a document, and it seems to me that the Queen’s Speech is a document because it is printed, on very fine paper normally—it used to be on vellum.
We have to live within our means. Everyone recognises that. There is not a single person in this country who does not recognise the phenomenal contribution made by the NHS over the last year, by doctors, nurses and all those who work in the NHS, but the Government—the taxpayer—have an enormous deficit, one of the biggest in our history, and what is happening is reasonable within the context that nurses have already received a 0.7% increase. They will receive a further 1% increase in the next financial year, as will all NHS workers. It is worth bearing in mind that the last time there was a 1% increase in NHS pay, it led to an average 2.7% increase for the average worker in the NHS because of grade increments. So actually, the situation is considerably better than is being painted by the Opposition, and the admiration and appreciation of what people who work in the NHS have done is shared across the whole country, but the country has to live within its means. That is a hard truth that the Opposition seek to run away from.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend will see that the restoration and renewal sponsor body’s latest report, out today, recommends exactly the same as the report in 2014 and the report in 2016, and draws the same conclusion as the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill that I introduced in 2018. My right hon Friend must surely see that the risks of a major asbestos leak, a sewage failure, or, indeed, a devastating fire, such as we saw at Notre Dame, are very high and remain very high, and we have virtually no contingency for this place. My personal motto is JFDI, and I would like to offer that to my right hon. Friend to gird his loins to make some progress.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I always prefer the motto of Queen Elizabeth I: semper eadem—always the same—which makes a very good motto. Or, if you like, Mr Speaker, honi soit qui mal y pense, which is also a jolly good motto from the Order of the Garter.
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of restoration and renewal. It is crucial that this building has its wiring improved and the basic services made effective. On the fire safety issue, a considerable amount of work has been done; the new fire safety system is being tested currently, and I am getting regular reports on that. It is a mist system with significant excess capacity, which means that there is the prospect of extending it further. I am glad to say that that has made considerable progress since my right hon. Friend was the Leader of the House.
Regardless of all these reports, regardless of what people have suggested, this has to get value for money for the taxpayer. We have suddenly heard talk of costs of £10 billion to £20 billion coming up. We cannot say that to our constituents. We in this House have the responsibility to protect taxpayers’ money. The other place, it must be remembered, does not. We are responsible, responsive and answerable to our constituents. Yes, we need to redo the wiring. Yes, we need to ensure that this place is safe and secure, but we must not turn this House of Commons into Disneyland.

Owen Thompson: The transition period continues, and I again make a plea to the Leader of the House to do all he can to ensure the speedy return of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to his place in this situation.
I also welcome today’s debate on the celebration of International Women’s Day. However, while we battle the covid pandemic, there is a hidden pandemic of domestic abuse during lockdown. The World Health Organisation has reported that one in three women globally—around 736 million—have been subjected to physical or sexual violence in their homes during this pandemic period. I ask the Leader of the House to do all he can to ensure that the Government take steps finally to ratify the Istanbul convention, as had been agreed in 2017 under the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill presented by Eilidh Whiteford, a colleague at the time. I hope that that can be brought forward with some speed.
Last week, I asked for an Opposition Day debate in the name of the Scottish National party. It has been granted, and I commend the Leader of the House for the pace at which that was brought forward. I have no doubt that he is eagerly anticipating the topics to be debated. However, I am aware that the time for that debate is not protected, so may I ask whether it is possible for it to be protected, or that every step possible is taken to ensure that we have the full time available to us?
Last month, the Prime Minister claimed that directly awarded covid contracts were there on the record “for everyone to see”. We now know that this was widely removed from the actuality. Indeed, the Government broke the law. Does the Leader of the House agree that supporting my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill would help to rebuild public trust, enable our procurement systems to be protected, and enable us to build back better as we come out of the pandemic?
Finally, I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House about Sarah Everard and send my thoughts to her family at this very, very difficult time.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) celebrated his birthday this week, so may I, on behalf of the House, wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns of the day?
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) is absolutely right to raise the issue of domestic abuse. I am glad to say that the Domestic Abuse Bill is making good progress in the House of Lords. I hope it will come back to this House in reasonably good time, so we can have a Bill on the statute book that helps people, protects people and secures people. It is, of course, about more than just passing laws and conventions; it is about changing society’s attitude, and an understanding that domestic abuse is wrong, that it is serious and that a domestic assault is just as serious an offence as any other assault outside the domestic context.
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s plea for protection for his Opposition day debate. I would say in response that having managed to get the Opposition day debate—ask and it shall be given; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto ye—but I am not sure I can promise protected time. However, Mr Speaker has no doubt heard the request in regard to urgent questions and I have heard it in regard to statements. It is sometimes a very difficult balancing act when Members feel a statement or urgent question is necessary, but it is, generally speaking, the aim to ensure that Opposition days are reasonably protected.
Finally, on covid contracts, I just fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think we can be really proud of the honesty of our governmental systems in this country, regardless of the party in power. I do not think we should throw around charges of dodgy dealing lightly, because we should have great confidence in the honesty of our public systems. Normally we have a system that takes three to six months to award contracts. We faced an emergency. It would have been ridiculous for red tape to hold up the delivery of contracts. The contracts were given to Labour-supporting people as well as to Conservatives, so it is recognised that people who have interests in party politics can also provide PPE. We went from producing 1% domestically to 70%, and the vaccine roll-out has been a terrific success, dependent on the private sector. I think we should take great comfort from the efficiency of our private sector and the honesty of our governmental systems.

Virginia Crosbie: Farmers in my constituency, like others across the UK, suffer great emotional and financial loss every year as a result of dog attacks on livestock. National Farmers Union Cymru and the Farmers’ Union of Wales have been working with the north Wales police rural crime team to make the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 fit for purpose in the 21st century. Will the Leader of the House support me in finding time for a debate in Government time on this important subject?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Representing a rural constituency, I appreciate how serious a concern it is. I understand that the  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a recent livestock worrying roundtable, which sounds a deeply uncomfortable thing to have. None the less, it had a livestock worrying roundtable last week with the north Wales police rural crime team and representatives from veterinary organisations, where technical questions on the use of DNA sampling in prosecuting an attack were discussed. I am aware it is something DEFRA is looking at. I encourage my hon. Friend, in her effort to make sure DEFRA considers it more and more, to seek an Adjournment debate on this matter, but I will pass on her comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Ian Mearns: We have been led to believe that it might be the Government’s intention to retain Thursday 25 March for Government business, which will no doubt be a disappointment to, among others, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). However, as always, should any time on days other than Thursdays become available, the Backbench Business Committee has a number of tasty morsels to add to the parliamentary menu.
I have been alerted to the fact that we have a situation in our schools where, if a student has a covid positive lateral flow test in school which proves to be a false positive when countermanded by a negative polymerase chain reaction test, the current guidance is that they still have to self-isolate and unnecessarily miss even more of their schooling. Can we have a ministerial statement to clear this up and get these young people back to school—and their families back to work, because isolating has to happen for the whole family?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I note the hon. Member’s request for 25 March and for time when available. Of course, 25 March is the feast of the Annunciation, so it may be an opportunity to have a debate on the importance of the Annunciation in the general development of our nation. I appreciate that he would like other days to be available too.
I understand that one in 1,000 lateral flow tests are false positives, so it is a rare occurrence. The circumstances that the hon. Member outlines are therefore usual, but he makes a good point about the secondary test not being authoritative, and I will take that up on his behalf with the Department of Health and Social Care.

Steve Brine: Now that we have a road map of sorts for the House of Commons, what are my right hon. Friend’s plans for proceedings in the Chamber, including for voting, by which I mean what does he see as temporary and what does he see as permanent? Put another way, with reference to his earlier quote, will he be channelling his inner Elizabeth I with respect to this place?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, but I encourage my hon. Friend to come to the Chamber to make his brilliant points, because there is no restriction other than the numbers within the Chamber. MPs have a right dating back to 1340 to come to this House, and I encourage them to exercise that right now that schools are back.
The return of MPs and staff gradually to the estate was approved by the Commission earlier this week, and it broadly mirrors the national road map. Many of these matters are for the Commission and Mr Speaker, and some of them are for decision by the House. However,  the measures were agreed by consensus on the basis that they were temporary. If people want to keep some of these measures permanently, they must make the case for them and bring them in at some later date, but we must restore the status quo ante first, because that was the basis on which people agreed to the changes, and they would feel cheated—and rightly so—if anything else were done.

Margaret Ferrier: The Department for International Trade’s parliamentary export programme launched this year. Businesses in my constituency will be able to participate in a series of briefings over the coming months run by the Department and assisted by Scottish Development International and Scottish chambers. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on how the UK Government can support companies to start exporting or expand their exports and adjust to the changing trade environment after Brexit?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The Government have a wide range of measures with which they support businesses that wish to export, including the export credit guarantee scheme, the use of embassies to help people to export and guidance that is available. To give that a higher profile so that more people know what support is available is extremely worth while. While I cannot promise a specific debate, her point is one that I am sure the Department will want to follow up on.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the issue raised so eloquently in last night’s Adjournment debate by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski): the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the strategic threat it constitutes to our central and eastern European friends and allies? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), agreed with the analysis by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham but stopped short of agreeing with his recommendations for action we can take. This is a very serious matter, and it deserves deeper and wider consideration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is right to raise the important Adjournment debate that was held yesterday by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It is a useful example of how important Adjournment debates can be in raising issues of national significance. There are currently no autonomous UK sanctions being imposed with respect to Nord Stream 2, and it would not be right to speculate on future sanction designations from the Dispatch Box this morning. None the less, the UK remains concerned about Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European energy security and the interests of Ukraine. Our focus continues to be on regulation, diversification and decarbonisation of sources of supply, and we will continue to work closely with our European allies on these issues, although the implications of the pipeline may be something that my right hon. Friend’s Intelligence and Security Committee is interested in looking into.

Zarah Sultana: Like women across the country, I have not been able to stop thinking about Sarah Everard; my thoughts are with those who knew and loved her. All women know the fear of walking home at night. We hold keys tightly between our fingers, we quicken our pace, and we pretend to make phone calls. It is almost second nature.
But women should be able to walk home without fear. Does the Leader of the House agree that we, as parliamentarians, should make it clear that the emphasis must be on tackling violence against women and girls and the norms that too often sustain it, rather than victim-blaming narratives that say women should not be on the streets at night?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady—she is absolutely right. Everybody in this country should feel free to walk the streets at night safely and securely, and women should be as free to do that as men. The best way to ensure that is by tackling crime, making our streets safer and getting the extra 20,000 police on the street.
There is nothing more reassuring than seeing a police officer in uniform when walking the streets, and that is a comfort that we in this country hope to be able to continue to take, and to take more of, as more police join the various forces up and down the country. I never thought I would agree so wholeheartedly with a question from the hon. Lady.

Christian Wakeford: TSB in Radcliffe recently closed, and it was the only bank in the town. That has resulted in footfall in the town decreasing drastically, as I discussed with representatives from Radcliffe market recently, and TSB’s branch in Prestwich in my constituency is due to close next month.
As we are talking about levelling up and the regeneration of our towns, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the importance of banking and cash machines so that we can access cash on our high streets?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know that the presence of bank branches on the high street is a concern for many Members and their constituents. Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of cash and access to banks to the daily lives of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly those in vulnerable groups.
Although I can understand the dissatisfaction when banks close their branches, decisions on opening and closing branches are taken by the management team of each bank on a commercial basis. It would not be right for the Government to intervene in such decisions. Banks must balance customer interests, market competition and other commercial factors when they consider their strategies. Since May 2017, the major high street banks have been signed up to the access to banking standard, which commits them to work with customers and communities to minimise the impact of branch closures.

Wera Hobhouse: Nature is declining all over the world at an unprecedented rate. Every year we are losing species and habitats, yet nature is important to our survival, quality of life and mental health. The next international convention on biodiversity is imminent; will the Leader of the House commit to bringing the  Environment Bill back to the House as soon as possible after Easter, so that the UK will have ambitious targets to restore nature?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Environment Bill is in the other place and the Government have every intention of bringing it back as soon as it can complete its passage. It is subject to a carry-over, so there is no risk of it falling at Prorogation; it is a highlight of the Government’s programme. The commitment to nature is enormous, as has been shown in the ocean designations that have been created around British territories to ensure that the oceans are safeguarded. We have done more in that regard than almost any other country in the world.

Jack Brereton: Our high streets have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, with many businesses forced to close. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate to consider the support available for reopening our high streets, especially across Stoke-on-Trent, so that our retailers, hairdressers, beauty salons and hospitality businesses can start off on a strong footing when they are allowed to reopen?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have set out their road map cautiously to ease lockdown restrictions, including the reopening of non-essential retail no earlier than 12 April, subject to the data. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have reconvened a small working group of retailers and local authorities to discuss and work together on how best to reopen the relevant sectors, so the Government’s approach is co-designed with the business community.
So far, the Government have provided local authorities in England with £50 million of taxpayers’ money through the reopening high streets safely fund, with grants being available to apply for until the end of June 2021. In addition to the financial support already provided, the Chancellor has announced that Her Majesty’s Government will provide additional one-off restart grants for businesses in England in the non-essential, retail, hospitality, leisure, personal care and accommodation sectors. That new restart grant scheme will provide £6,000 for non-essential businesses.
The Government continue to provide eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England with 100% business rates relief until 30 June 2021, followed by 66% business rates relief from the period 1 July 2021 to 1 March 2022. A great deal is happening, but my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue because we want to see our high streets come back booming when we reopen.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Leader of the House and all House staff for the restarted hybrid petitions debates; just this week, petitions signed by more than 370,000 petitioners have been debated.
I want to raise an issue pertinent to this week, which marks International Women’s Day. As a precaution, all pregnant women are automatically classed as clinically vulnerable to covid-19. The Petitions Committee recommended back in September that furlough be extended to expectant mothers who cannot socially distance at work or work from home. Government funding through  the furlough scheme cannot be used for that purpose, and we have heard worrying reports of pregnant women struggling to come to fair arrangements with their employers.
I again urge the Government to reconsider and listen to calls from Maternity Action and others for expectant mothers to be eligible for furlough if they are unable to work safely. Will the Leader of the House find time for a broader debate on how we prevent the pandemic from deepening pre-existing gender inequalities in the workplace?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am delighted that the hybrid Westminster Hall is getting important petitions debated. It is a very effective way of ensuring that the matters of the greatest concern to our constituents are aired.
It is obviously important that businesses work with their staff to ensure that they are comfortable going back to work and that there is consideration for all sorts of factors that may have an effect on people returning. Pregnancy, inevitably, is a very important one of those. Employers have a duty—a legal obligation—to ensure that their workplaces are secure. I think these issues are best left between employers and employees, rather than having potentially heavy-handed Government intervention.

James Daly: Will my right hon. Friend make parliamentary time available this Session for the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill—the Pets (Microchips) Bill? Tuk’s law and Gizmo’s law campaigners have fought for many years to protect the welfare of dogs, cats and other pets, together with the rights of their owners. I believe that it is a Bill that the whole House will be eager to support.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend has written to me on this matter, and he will be aware that there is a sitting Friday tomorrow for the remaining stages of eight private Members’ Bills to take place. As I said when sitting Fridays were suspended, I brought forward the motion reluctantly following representations made to me from across the House. I committed to ensuring that a motion was brought forward to bring back sitting Fridays at the earliest opportunity when it was possible and practical, which is why there will be a further motion for 19 March if tomorrow goes well and if it is a productive and useful session. That would allow for Second Readings.
I congratulate my hon. Friend, because he is using parliamentary procedures entirely properly. A ten-minute rule Bill does not normally become legislation in the Session in which it is introduced, but it begins a campaign that raises the heat on the Government to do things. I note that he is turning up the gas mark with his question to me today.

Chris Bryant: I have always thought that the best way to deal with some of the historical problems that the Rhondda faces is getting the Senedd to work hand in hand with Parliament as a team. That is especially true because we have some major infrastructure projects that really need financial support. We have already talked about the tips that need sorting out, and there is the Rhondda Fach relief road, the Rhondda tunnel and a whole series of drains that have major problems because of the honeycombing underneath that results from the historical legacy of the mines.
Will the Leader of the House please make sure that there is a proper discussion of the levelling up fund so that this really is a case of Westminster and the Senedd working hand in hand? Will he make sure there is an opportunity for valleys MPs to sit down and discuss this properly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Then perhaps we can have a debate in the House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. It is important that all parts of the United Kingdom are able to benefit from efforts to level up. One of the advantages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is that it has made it possible for Her Majesty’s Government to fund schemes across the United Kingdom rather than simply in England. He is right to call for further discussions to see how this can be done.
There are applications going in for the levelling-up fund now, and there are a further 49 deals to be awarded. It is about working together as one United Kingdom. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is very keen to settle these issues, too, so I think that there may be considerable cross-party agreement among Welsh MPs in this House on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

James Grundy: Rugby league is of great cultural importance to communities like Leigh; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome the return of Leigh Centurions to the rugby super league. Will he join me in supporting Leigh Centurions fans to create a category 1 rugby league academy? Furthermore, may I ask for a debate on the benefits such academies can provide to young people in constituencies like Leigh across the north?

Lindsay Hoyle: I hope this is a yes.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I congratulate Leigh Centurions on their fantastic achievement. I do not really know how fantastic their achievement is, but it sounds extremely good, and I hope that my hon. Friend will explain it to me in more detail at some point.
Hosting the rugby league world cup later this year will provide a fantastic opportunity to recover, grow, and bring people together. It is the start of our efforts to unite and level up outcomes for people in communities across the UK as we seek to build back better. If I have not confessed it already, I think my knowledge of cricket is a little bit greater than my knowledge of rugby league, but I am looking forward to being educated by my hon. Friend—and, by the looks of it, by Mr Speaker as well.

Alex Davies-Jones: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it has been an extremely difficult week for the family and friends of the 16-year-old who was killed in my neighbouring constituency of Rhondda, as well as for the loved ones of Sarah Everard, whose case I know we are all closely following. No one should live in fear of male violence, which is a topic we should be regularly speaking up on, and not just in an annual debate to commemorate International Women’s Day. Will he therefore commit to a debate on male violence in Government time?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady makes a really important point, which I would perhaps answer in a slightly different way. What this House does that is of the greatest importance is not to have debates on particular issues but to legislate. That is why I am particularly pleased that, unusually for a Second Reading debate, we have two days on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, because when we legislate we change the law—we actually do things. When we have debates, we may develop views but we do not actually do things. Likewise, the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is in the House of Lords, does things. We should really focus the mind of this House on legislating so that we can improve things in the way the hon. Lady is calling for.

Esther McVey: The anniversary of the first lockdown—the day that changed everything in this country—is rapidly approaching: it will be with us on 23 March. I am working with Variety, the children’s charity, among others, to ensure that that date is commemorated so that we remember those who died and those who have lost so much, thank those who have done so much, and also look forward to a brighter future as lockdown lifts. Can the Leader of the House assure me that the House, too, will commemorate that date and have a minute’s silence? In doing so, can I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your willingness to ensure that the House commemorates 23 March—the National Day of Reflection?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is going to be important for us to remember the people who have died during this national pandemic. Obviously the proposal for a minute’s silence is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, but there would be absolutely no objection—indeed, there would be support—from Her Majesty’s Government. It may be, Mr Speaker, that your Chaplain would like to hold a service on that day to have a commemoration. I think that it will be a prayerful day for the nation.

Tulip Siddiq: As Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s local MP, I have raised the issue of the £400 million that the UK owes Iran with three Prime Ministers and four Foreign Secretaries so far. In a call to the Prime Minister yesterday, Iranian President Rouhani all but confirmed that resolving this debt was the key to diplomatic progress, and could help Nazanin’s case. Will the Leader of the House finally admit that there is a clear link between the two, or at least allow a debate in Government time to test their arguments?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No. The hon. Lady has quite rightly campaigned for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as has the shadow Leader of the House. However, it would be quite wrong to link payments of any money to the release of somebody who is improperly detained. Once Her Majesty’s Government go down that route, every badly run country in the world will hold us to ransom via our citizens; we must not do that. We must be absolutely clear that the UK Government do not pay for the release of hostages, whether they are held by states or by individuals. To link these two issues would be a dangerous change of very, very long-standing Government policy.

Sara Britcliffe: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It saddens me to say that Labour-run Hyndburn Borough Council announced that it will be closing the baths at Mercer Hall in Great Harwood. We saw the same happen with Labour-run Rossendale Borough Council and Haslingden baths. All Labour councillors also voted against a fully costed amendment by the Conservative group to put capital investment into saving the baths and providing disabled access. There is a now a petition urging the council to listen to the wants of the residents of Great Harwood, but will the Leader of the House also allow a debate in Government time as to how best to protect valuable local leisure facilities?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. It is regrettable that a Labour council—a socialist council—would close a local facility that is loved so much by the residents of Great Harwood. It is a shame to see the people of Hyndburn let down in this way.
The Localism Act 2011 introduced the community right to buy, which is a way in which communities have come together to protect local assets by making the case to their local authority to list the facility as an asset of community value; local people can be assured that the amenity will not be lost without them being notified and being given an opportunity to bring the building into community ownership. To date, the Government are aware that over 4,000 assets of community value, including leisure centre facilities, have been successfully nominated by community groups in England. I encourage my hon. Friend to have an Adjournment debate to keep raising the subject, so that support may be built up for using the community right to buy.

Christine Jardine: The Government have announced a consultation to reform aviation tax, including air passenger duty, and a commitment to decarbonise. These commitments come at a time when our travel and aviation industries are facing the biggest crisis in their history, and at the time of the Union connectivity review. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether we will have the opportunity to debate how our domestic airports and air travel, as part of UK connectivity, can be pursued with a green agenda?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government have made it very clear with the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan how green we are going to be, while ensuring that there is good economic growth; that is absolutely at the heart of what the Government are doing. The proposals for aviation tax are to encourage connectivity across the United Kingdom. I am sure that these matters will be debated over the coming weeks and months in the House of Commons, because they are important to the development of the country’s economy.

Pauline Latham: I am a little concerned that Ministers are now casting doubt on the reliability and efficacy of the vaccine, but we have been told by scientists that the first dose brings substantial protection, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has said that it offers between 70% and 90% efficacy. We must follow the science and trust the data—or so we are told. We must  believe in the vaccines, and we must lift restrictions in line with the protection that the scientists are telling us that the vaccine brings. I do not believe we should keep the country in lockdown any longer than necessary. We have to get people out, because of the substantial harms that lockdown brings. Will my right hon. Friend talk to Government Ministers and ask them to stop changing the test for lifting restrictions every time we get past what we think might be the finishing line? I would also like to say to the Leader of the House that I am looking forward to joining him in going to Annabel’s or anywhere he chooses.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That’s a date, then, although I am certainly not a member; perhaps my hon. Friend is.
The vaccination programme has been a huge success and is a key part of the road map to get back to normal. The Government’s aim is to offer a vaccination to everyone in the first nine priority groups, including everybody over the age of 50, by 15 April, and to all adults by the end of July. The road map that has been set out has been set out clearly so that we can stick to it and the goalposts do not get changed. I think she and Government policy are at one on this.

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to see the first dance!

Stuart McDonald: Inspectors this week issued an absolutely scathing report about conditions at Napier and Penally barracks, into which the Home Secretary has crammed hundreds of asylum seekers in the middle of a pandemic, and hundreds have become ill with coronavirus. It is challenging to say the least to reconcile that report with what Ministers have previously told this House. When will the Home Secretary be making a statement in response, and will she be correcting anything that she has previously told us about the conditions at Napier and Penally barracks?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I, like the hon. Gentleman, have read the interim report, and certainly it raises some matters of considerable concern. There will be a full report coming later, and I think it is best to discuss these matters in detail when we have the full facts.

Shaun Bailey: The £67 million awarded to my borough of Sandwell from the towns fund is a great success for the Government’s levelling-up agenda. However, my communities in Wednesbury and Tipton were the only parts of the borough of Sandwell to receive nothing from the towns fund. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my communities in Wednesbury and Tipton, through a debate in Government time, on how the measures announced by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week in the Budget can ensure that towns like Wednesbury and Tipton get equal access to funding opportunities, just as much as towns like West Bromwich?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will spend taxpayers’ money on local infrastructure that improves everyday life across the United Kingdom, including regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and spending money on cultural and heritage assets. The fund will operate UK-wide, extending the benefits of funding for priority local infrastructure across all regions and nations. The prospectus  published at the Budget provides guidance for local areas on how to submit bids for the first round of funding for projects starting in 2021-22. That includes guidance on the process for submitting bids, the types of projects eligible for funding and how bids will be assessed. To reassure my hon. Friend, there are still 49 deals to be awarded, and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be making further announcements in due course, which will be the opportunity for other communities in his constituency to apply.

Liz Twist: Two weeks ago, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published its provisional assessment of the drug Kuvan, for the treatment of phenylketonuria, or PKU. While it is good to see NICE recommend it be made available for children up to 18, it is hugely disappointing that it has not recommended making it available for adults. People with PKU have already waited 12 years for access to this treatment. Can we have a debate in Government time on access to medicines for rare diseases, such as Kuvan for PKU?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady is making. When we represent constituents who need drugs for rare diseases, it is important that we get them. I think the principle that NICE is independent in making these decisions is also a sensible one, but it is crucial that its decisions are made in a timely way and appear to be reasonable to the country at large. NICE is a matter that will come up for debate, but it may be that the hon. Lady will want an Adjournment debate on this specific issue. I had one on Batten disease before joining the Government, and the Government proved very sympathetic to the quest for my constituent.

Edward Leigh: Some people overstate their case by saying that the state of this building is ruinous, but one thing that is certain is that the public finances are in ruins. So will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to make it clear that, when it comes to the restoration and renewal of Parliament, the absolute first priority of Government is value for money? In this context, will he note that the House has never voted to demolish the grade I listed Richmond House? It is a listed building, and there is the issue of carbon and all the other issues. Can the Leader of the House have an open mind about it and learn from our experience of working virtually by perhaps not having a September sitting and, above all, getting on with the work now? In this report, where it says, “What is the cost?”, the whole thing is blanked out. What is going on here? Let us have value for money. That is what the taxpayer wants.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend that taxpayers’ money has to be spent wisely. The proposal for Richmond House and the Queen Elizabeth II Centre was that there would be about £1.5 billion of expenditure on temporary Chambers. This cannot have been a sensible thing to do even in less straitened financial times; in the current circumstances, it seems to me to be for the birds. We have to focus on value for money, and I agree with my right hon. Friend.
I am not the greatest advocate of hybrid proceedings—they are better than nothing, but they are not as good as real physical participation in debate—but I would rather have hybrid proceedings for a little bit when we could not use this Chamber than spend a billion and a half pounds. We as Members of Parliament have a responsibility to our constituents when their money is being spent to accept that, while great reforms or restorations are taking place, we may have to put up with a little bit of discomfort. There may be, occasionally, a little bit of banging and noise being made, and we cannot be too fussy about that if we are to keep this as a working operational building. But the key work needs to be done, and it needs to be done in a timely fashion, with value for money at its heart.

Jessica Morden: Please could we have an opportunity to raise with the Steel Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—the news that one of Liberty Steel’s main financial backers has gone into administration and the company is looking to refinance? We have an important plant in Newport at Uskmouth, with a dedicated workforce, and we need to hear what contact the Government have had with the company and that Ministers will do whatever they can to protect our steel jobs.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thought that the hon. Lady would raise this important point, because I am obviously aware of the reporting this week on Liberty Steel, which is worrying for the company’s employees. I can reassure her that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is following the developments closely. It remains a strong advocate for the steel industry and continues to work closely with the steel industry to support the sector’s transition to a competitive, sustainable and low-carbon future. It has made some funding available for this, with £500 million of taxpayers’ money in relief for the steel sector since 2013 to make electricity costs more competitive. It is obviously important, however, that the Government and the company are working as one to ensure a good prospect for the steel industry in these difficult times, with regard to the background of Liberty Steel.

John Baron: We all understand that the pandemic has led to a substantial increase in correspondence between Members and Government Departments, and I do thank the Leader of the House for his efforts to ensure that this correspondence is responded to in a timely fashion. However, may I gently suggest to the Government that extra resources need to be committed to the Department of Health and Social Care’s correspondence teams in particular? On occasions, I have been waiting for up to six months to receive a substantive response to my inquiries on behalf of constituents, despite chasing through the normal channels, and I know I am not alone. Such a situation does not reflect well on either the Government or Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have taken up far too many Members’ issues with Departments relating to correspondence. I said last year that I had considerable sympathy with the Department for Health and Social Care because of its excess workload. I must confess that that sympathy is  no longer as great as it once was. My hon. Friend is right that more resources need to be dedicated to the matter. We have a right and a duty to hold the Government to account, and the Government have a duty to respond to Members. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I also think that scrutiny leads to better government, so it is in our interest as the Government as much as in that of Back-Bench MPs that scrutiny takes place, and therefore responses should be timely.

Alison Thewliss: New research from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has found that two thirds of people believe that the Tory two-child limit for universal credit and child tax credit should be scrapped, not least because there is evidence that the policy is pushing women to terminate a pregnancy rather than bring a third child into the world. Can we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to scrap the pernicious two-child limit and the rape clause that stands part of the policy?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As the father of six children, I have rather exceeded the two-child limit. Children are a great joy to families and the country as a whole, but there are limited public resources, and that is part of the difficult choice that Governments need to make. Parents have a responsibility to their own children. It is fundamentally a parental responsibility, but anything that leads to a termination is a deep sadness.

Sir David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the role of the monarchy? During such a debate, I very much hope that the argument could be made that it is never wise for a family dispute to be aired in public, with everyone getting damaged and hurt by the fallout. Perhaps during such a debate, we can celebrate the fact that we are so blessed to have had our monarch for 70 years, compared with the alternative of having a president as our Head of State, which we very nearly had under Tony Blair.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Were we to have a debate to praise our sovereign lady, it would take up all the legislative time available in the House, so all I will say is:
“God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all!”

Edward Leigh: Follow that.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are about to.

Points of Order

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, the Prime Minister confirmed to me last week during Prime Minister’s questions that we have a unified civil service in the United Kingdom and that there are no separate civil services in the devolved Administrations. Logically, that means that Ministers are answerable to this House of Commons for issues relating to the conduct of the whole civil service. Will you please confirm that that is the case, and that, if any Member of this House consequently wants to table a question or ask for a report into the conduct of civil servants currently serving in any devolved Administration, which Ministers would answer such questions? Will you also confirm that any Committee of this House that seeks information from any civil servants in any part of the United Kingdom will be able to do so if that is needed for any parliamentary inquiry?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Table Office will be able to advise him about the tabling of questions. The Government decide which Department responds. The Table Office will be able to advise about the most appropriate Department to direct the questions towards in the first instance. The normal rules about questions, including on ministerial responsibility, would of course apply.
Select Committees may seek evidence from a wide range of sources and certain options are open to them if that evidence is not provided.

Andrew Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Clerk reads the Orders of the Day for the Second Reading of the supply Bill, may I put on record that I and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends had hoped to table an amendment yesterday to the motion on the vote on account? The amendment would have referred to the sums being appropriated to overseas aid in that motion and sought to establish that the Government should  not be able to reduce planned expenditure below the  sum set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.I am advised—I am sure correctly—that that was not possible, as no amendments could be moved at the roll-up, and the Bill is about to go through on the nod. That means that Members have no way of deciding whether or not the House assents to the massive cuts planned in our support for the world’s most vulnerable people. Whatever the merits of that case, Mr Speaker, do you agree that if we are to take back control, one place to start would be to get some grip on public expenditure plans, which are at the heart of what we do in this place, and yet seem to be totally in the hands of Ministers?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I confirm that he was given the correct advice, and that under Standing Order No. 55 no amendments can be proposed to the roll-up motions. The matter is therefore not a point of order for the Chair, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record, and the House has heard them. As he knows, this has been the longstanding  way that the House has dealt with issues, and I gently say to him that he was the Chief Whip and he did not complain too much when he was in charge at the time. There are ways that we can change things, but at the moment we will carry on with the way we are.

Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was on the Procedure Committee, I was instrumental in getting that committee to ensure that we had proper debates on estimates days. On a previous occasion, when I tried to speak about the estimates on estimates days, I was ruled out of order by your predecessor. We have made progress, but I would have thought that the whole debate to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) alluded, shows that we can continue to make progress on this and improve parliamentary scrutiny on estimates. In particular, we should follow up the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament that we should have a proper Budget committee. I appreciate that you are constrained by present rules, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will forgive me if I make that point.

Lindsay Hoyle: As you well know, Sir Edward, that is not a point for me, but I am sure the Leader of the House has managed to hear what is being said. I think we will leave it at that. I will suspend the House for three minutes to allow preparations to be made for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Business without Debate

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments)  (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill: Business of the House

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (12)(a) of this Order.
(6) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Other proceedings

(9) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.

Miscellaneous

(10) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(11) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(12) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(13) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(14) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(15) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(16) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Jesse Norman.)

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Second Reading

Jesse Norman: I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a technical measure that concerns cash management. Its purpose is to allow the Government to use cash advances to act swiftly and decisively to safeguard the people of this country, both from the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and from other unexpected events. But I would emphasise that money from the Contingencies Fund constitutes a cash advance, which will have to be repaid once a Supply estimate is voted through the House; it is not additional spending. It is important to be clear that the House will still be able to scrutinise and debate where resources have been allocated in the usual way when the Government publish the Supply estimates.
As hon. Members will be very much aware, Parliament provides the Government with the authority to expend resources in the form of capital and cash. However, the Government must also sometimes provide a swift financial response to national emergencies and other pressing events. That is why the Contingencies Fund exists. In the Contingencies Fund Act 1974, Parliament put a limit on the amount that could be issued from the fund at 2% of the previous year’s cash spend. That cap has normally proved to be sufficient to meet unexpected and sudden financial requirements, but we are not living in normal times at present, and uncertainty as to the impact of covid-19 has required a degree of flexibility in setting the cap.
As colleagues across the House will recall, a year ago, as the full implications of the pandemic started to emerge, the House agreed to change the limit on the Contingencies Fund from 2% to 50% of the previous year’s cash spend for the financial year 2020-21. That had the effect of raising the amount in the fund from a possible £11 billion to £266 billion. This cash advance has been invaluable to Departments in dealing with the unprecedented events that have been set in motion by the pandemic. In fact, over the past 12 months, requests from the Contingencies Fund have totalled over £210 billion. It has provided the cash for Government interventions to support businesses, to support frontline workers and to pay for the furlough and other schemes. In addition, it has provided the financial firepower to help the NHS through the crisis, and it has funded numerous other measures that have helped to safeguard lives and livelihoods throughout this extraordinarily difficult period. As is the case in every previous year, the fund has also paid out on business-as-usual requests.
This Bill again seeks to adjust the limit on the amount that can sit in the Contingencies Fund for the financial year ending 30 March 2022 to 12% of last year’s  cash spend. I will set out the reasoning behind that decision. With the new cap, the amount in the fund will total £105 billion. By contrast, with the 2% cap—the  normal percentage limit—the fund would have contained £17.5 billion. That is clearly a substantial sum, and it would be more than ample to deal with spending requirements in the normal run of things.
While the Government will provide Departments with suitable resources for the 2021-22 year, it is prudent to be prepared in cash terms. While the resounding success of the vaccination programme offers us light at the end of the tunnel, it is equally true that we must remain vigilant. The crisis is not over, and therefore the Government believe it is only right to retain flexibility on the amount in the Contingencies Fund. However, given the experience accrued by each Department over the last year in dealing with the virus, we can scale back the limit from 50% of the previous year’s cash spend to 12%. Once again, let me assure Members that the House will still be able to scrutinise and debate where resources have been allocated in the usual way when we publish the supply estimates.
This is a small and technical but important Bill that will allow the Government to deal with unexpected events over the coming year. It provides Departments with a mechanism to respond swiftly and decisively to emergencies and sudden, unpredictable needs so that they can safeguard our public services and support the wellbeing of people across the country. It does not impinge on Parliament’s right to scrutinise and question, but it does underline this Government’s commitment to do whatever it takes to protect lives and livelihoods in order to overcome this virus, and I commend it to the House.

James Murray: I thank the Financial Secretary for setting out the case for the Bill so clearly. The Bill seeks to amend the Contingencies Fund Act 1974, which is one of the monuments of a previous Labour Government. The 1974 Act embodies principles that are central to the accountability of Government, so its amendment should not be taken lightly.
This time last year, the Opposition fully accepted that the conditions of the pandemic made it necessary, expedient and right for there to be provision for the Government to act swiftly. We accepted that, in the rush of the early response to the outbreak, there could be times when it would not be possible to follow normal procurement processes. We accepted that, at certain points, the spot price paid for particular goods facing global shortages might be higher than it would otherwise have been, and we accepted that, on occasion, at a time when the Government were taking on entirely new responsibilities, some mistakes would be made. But we do not accept, and the British people will not accept, that what may have been excused in the early days of the outbreak has turned into a succession of failures and scandals, which it seems Ministers can no longer even see as wrong.
Last year, the Opposition agreed to a rise in the provision of the Contingencies Fund to some 50% of annual expenditure. While we accept that a higher than usual level for the Contingencies Fund is again in order and we will not be opposing the Bill, Ministers would do well to remember that the fund was created as a fall-back and that its extension is an emergency response, not an opportunity for unaccountability. Ministers seem to have forgotten that public money needs to be spent effectively, in a way that achieves value for money and commands public confidence.
The starkest example of failure by this Government must surely be their flagship Test and Trace scheme, a programme outsourced at great expense and the subject of a report published yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee, which was truly damning. The Government should be embarrassed and deeply apologetic over Test and Trace, which Lord Macpherson, who led the Treasury civil service from 2005 to 2016, described as
“the most wasteful and inept public spending programme of all time.”
What makes it even worse is that everyone in the country desperately wanted Test and Trace to work. Everyone was willing the programme and its team to succeed. We all wanted and needed that money to be spent on a programme that would achieve its stated goal, and we have all witnessed the profound consequences of incompetence on such a scale. I lost count of the number of times that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) called for the Government simply to focus on getting Test and Trace working, yet Ministers did not.
The opening summary of the Public Accounts Committee’s report contains the following telling sentences:
“The Department of Health & Social Care justified the scale of investment, in part, on the basis that an effective test and trace system would help avoid a second national lockdown; but since its creation we have had two more lockdowns. There is still no…evidence to judge”
Test and Trace’s “overall effectiveness”.
Only people who have no real understanding of the value of money or the importance of public investment in changing lives for the better could be so reckless about how it is spent. We believe that the Government really need to learn from the last year, not only by accepting that the outbreak exposed the weakness of our rights at work and the impact of a decade of cuts to our public services, or by recognising that they repeatedly did too little, too late to protect the public’s health and our economy, but by making serious structural reforms to how they initiate and examine spending.
The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East, has set out how the next Labour Government would do things differently, by taking a robust and determined approach to ensuring that public money improves the lives of those we serve. She has explained how we would invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to submit an annual report to Parliament, bringing together the National Audit Office’s findings throughout the year into a single assessment of the effectiveness of public spending in those areas that it has examined. As my hon. Friend has said, we must hard-wire value for money into the budgetary process.
But the value for money aspect is not the only part of this extraordinary year for public spending that commands our attention. It would be possible to achieve value for money and yet still fall far short of other standards we expect. That is why the new clause that the Opposition will move in Committee seeks to improve the transparency of Government spending.
We know only too well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has set out, that the way in which procurement is conducted also matters very  much. Put simply, the time to end emergency procurement is overdue. Covid, as she rightly observed, is no longer a surprise. Supply chains have been established and, while there are of course still significant challenges and responding quickly remains essential, there is no longer a case for the continued widespread use of emergency measures of procurement for items that the Government now know how and where to find.
Contract publication should now follow the normal rules, and when contracts fail to deliver, the Government should get money back. That is public money. “Deliver or you won’t get paid” is what contractors expect from every other organisation and company they supply. The Government must not be the softest touch in the market.
We must drive a culture of transparency throughout public spending. The new clause that we will move today seeks to improve the transparency of the Contingencies Fund, because that is what the Bill before us concerns, but it is time for every part of public spending to achieve better value for money and for the Government to use their spending power to improve standards in the way the public would expect. The Opposition believe that achieving these changes need not be difficult or controversial.
We recognise the power of public investment to transform people’s lives for the better. That is fundamentally why we, like the British public, cannot bear to see Ministers casually and carelessly waste public money on deals that do not deliver, on contracts that do not work and on outsourcing that should never have taken place. Every pound that this Government misspend makes it that bit harder for nurses to accept the Chancellor’s pleading that a 1% pay rise is all he can afford. Every penny that this Government waste could have gone towards building a fairer, more secure future for our country. We will not be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but our new clause in Committee will set out a new standard of transparency that would pull Ministers up, force them to sharpen their focus on value for money and make sure we have more money to spend on the things that matter to us all.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Andrew Jones, I want to point out that although what we are dealing with is very important, we also have the Committee of the whole House and Third Reading, and then we have 70 contributions in the International Women’s Day debate. If people could keep that in mind as they consider the length of their contributions, I would be extremely grateful.

Andrew Jones: I will, of course, follow your advice as scrupulously as ever, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This Bill is about cash flow. It is not about all the stuff that we have just been hearing from the shadow Minister. All organisations have to manage their cash flow and meet their liabilities, and failure to do so is a significant reason for corporate collapses. It is, obviously, different in the public sector, but the rule about meeting liabilities remains as Government react to urgent situations. There are also clear mechanisms for making sure that in the event of a cash need, the cash will be there. That is what the Contingencies Fund is.
This Bill is about the Treasury’s capacity to make repayable advances to other Departments, so that they can react to events if needed. Parliament has long recognised that principle. The legislation governing it is 45 years old, but in fact the principle was established by Treasury minute in 1862, when the Contingencies Fund was created. For this financial year—and the next, if we pass this Bill—the threshold allowed in the legislation has been increased, and for obvious reasons. We are dealing with the greatest health crisis in 100 years.

Jim Shannon: I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand. Although I understand that this is specifically about cash flow, the whole House recognises that there is a real crisis in cancer treatment when it comes to diagnosis and surgical operations, and many people have died waiting for those to happen. Does he agree that covid-19 has increased the demand for cancer care, and therefore all requests that come from the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care must be treated sympathetically and urgently?

Andrew Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. There is no doubt at all that we have seen some health treatments delayed as a result of the crisis, and that is a real tragedy. He is right that cancer is one of those where we should be most concerned, and the requests that come in should be treated with urgency and compassion as we seek to catch up on the treatments that the people we represent urgently need. That was a wise point.
I go back to the core purpose of the Bill and why it has been introduced. The Government needed to respond quickly and at scale, and they have done so. The Bill before us is about renewing the increased capacity for the next financial year, and we are only three weeks away from the new financial year. We are being asked to approve a one-year increase in the limit from 2% to 12%. That is, of course, a big jump, which amounts to more than £100 billion. We should also perhaps remind ourselves that the House approved an increase in the limit to 50% for this financial year—truly exceptional in every way.
I support increasing the limit in the Bill. We are not through this pandemic, and it is not hard to imagine circumstances where the Government have to react urgently ahead of the regular voting provision under the normal supply procedure. One of the lessons of the past year has been that the course of the pandemic has not been linear. None of us can guarantee that the future will not require urgent action. In reality, we can probably all predict that it will.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, this is quite a dry Bill, but once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister. That does not mean, however, that we should not scrutinise; of course we should. But the Bill does not increase budgets, and it does not give the Government a blank cheque. These are cash advances, which are highlighted to Parliament through the normal estimates booklets and memoranda, and then we vote on them. There is transparency as funds are drawn upon by Departments. There is guidance agreed between the Treasury, the National Audit Office and Parliament. That means that written ministerial statements are published throughout the year and cash advances are included in the main or supplementary estimates. I hope we will not be facing a contingencies Bill for the 2022-23 financial  year. The progress that we are making in tackling the virus is obviously fantastic, but the consequences will be felt for a long, long time.
It is too early to spend time on an inquiry on the lessons from the pandemic, but one thing I am sure we will consider in due course is how well and how quickly government—I am talking about the UK Government, devolved Administrations, local government and, above all, the NHS—have responded. They have been nimble and dynamic in their response. This Bill is simply about facilitating the cash flow to allow that quick response and that is why we should all support it.

Richard Thomson: This is a short but important Bill. Last year’s measures in the Contingencies Fund Act 2020 were absolutely unprecedented. Setting a level of 50% on the fund ensured that the rapidly evolving policy response to covid-19 could be matched with the necessary resource. It was important that we did so. At that time, we were heading for a lockdown and a parliamentary recess for Easter. It was unclear when Parliament would be able to return and we had no means at that point, at least as I recall, of enabling virtual participation in Westminster, so it was essential to allow necessary and perhaps even extraordinary expenditure to take place in the short to medium term to support the policy responses to covid that were deemed to be necessary, without the requirement for us to reconvene Parliament to ensure that further spending could be authorised.
This year’s Bill, by extending the scale of the fund beyond the usual 2%, clearly recognises a need for that flexibility to continue. Setting this year’s contingencies fund at 12% may well give access in the short term to the same amount of resource that was used in practice last year. In the light of experience, it may be felt that out of all the arbitrary figures that could have been chosen for the Bill this year, this is the figure that somehow just feels right. However, for all the progress that has been made with vaccines and vaccinations in recent times, we are not out of the woods yet. There have been mutations to the virus, which have increased its virulence and forced us in consequence to change our behaviours and responses. There may yet be further mutations that force us to further reappraise our plans on how we wish to emerge from the present restrictions.
The only thing that we can predict with certainty about the future of living under this virus is that we cannot predict it with certainty. As such, while the Scottish National party group supports the Bill and will not oppose the 12% level being set on the fund, I will place on the record that we would have been content, in the interests of prudence and good governance, to see a higher figure being used.
Let me turn to the proposed amendment; I am aware of your injunctions about time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that the Bill will have a Committee stage. I have looked at the amendment, which has been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, and although it increases the length of the Bill tenfold, it clearly seeks to tackle important issues regarding transparency and accountability in Government spending. I have a lot of sympathy with its intent and will listen carefully to the arguments in Committee.
There is, however, a much wider issue regarding the ability of this House to properly scrutinise Government expenditure, which extends to the estimates process. For someone who entered the House with a background in local government and who bore the scars of passing budgets as a co-leader of a minority council administration, it is remarkable, in contrast, how contested local authority budgets running to just hundreds of millions of pounds can be, when hundreds of billions of pounds across the year in central Government expenditure can still sail through relatively untroubled by the interference of competing views from the Opposition. Although there have been some recent changes to the estimates days’ debates—the estimates can now be debated rather than needing the vehicle of Select Committee reports related to them—it is still extraordinary to my mind that there is no meaningful way to seek to amend Government spending through the estimates process or an ability, as a matter of course, to scrutinise planned departmental expenditure before it is approved.
That brings me, in closing, to the current fiscal framework. The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance has repeatedly pressed the UK Government to provide extra flexibility so that the Scottish Government can mobilise funding when it is most urgently needed through this crisis. While the UK Government have indeed confirmed that the late funding allocated in this financial year could be carried forward into 2021-22 without having to use the Scotland reserve, that flexibility is still limited and temporary. The crisis has revealed a fiscal framework in the UK that is not fit for purpose. As the previous furlough extension for England demonstrated, no matter what the devolved Governments might wish to do in policy terms, problems still have often to be felt first in Whitehall before a budgetary response is triggered for England, which then triggers its way through to other Governments.
In my view, the best people to take decisions for Scotland are those of us who make our lives here. The policy choices we make should be restricted only by the limits of our own resources, the limits of our own choices and the limits of our own imaginations, and not by limits and constraints that are set elsewhere. We will continue to press for these additional flexibilities as part of the fiscal framework review.

Saqib Bhatti: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also take note of your indication to limit our contributions, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could speak for hours on the Bill, but I will refrain from doing so.
I want to speak in favour of the Bill because, quite frankly, if there was ever a time when we needed a contingencies Bill it would be during a pandemic, and we are still in a pandemic. As the Financial Secretary said, for those members of the public who will be watching today, the Contingencies Fund Act 2020 enabled Government Departments to increase their percentage of spending at a time when the country needed it most. It was vital to make sure that the Government could act in a timely manner to safeguard the people of our country.
This is, of course, a contingency. It is not additional spending. It is there to ensure that Departments have access to funds if needed. If there is one takeaway from the past 12 months, it is that we should be prepared for every eventuality. It is appropriate that the percentage  of the total supply expenditure is reduced to 12%, as opposed to the 50% it was last year. Of course, last year, when the previous Bill was passed, we knew we had a crisis, but it would have been near impossible to estimate the full cost of Departments’ needs at that time.
Today, we know more. We have a world-leading vaccination programme, which means we have vaccinated over 22 million people. We know that infection rates are falling and, thankfully, the Prime Minister has laid out a road map as to how the economy will open up. In the light of that, it is correct to reduce the contingency need while not yet returning to the normal 2%. We are, after all, not in normal times, so the normal 2% cannot apply. I would go further. This Bill, in my view, represents strong leadership, as the previous one did at the start of the pandemic.
We should not forget what the previous Bill allowed Government Departments to do. The urgent procurement of contracts allowed the Government to be swift in their response. It allowed us to deliver 32 billion items of personal protective equipment—32 billion, Mr Deputy Speaker—and 22,000 ventilators, when at the start of the pandemic there was an acute need. Those were quite literally matters of life and death. In such instances, the Government have but one duty: to take every possible measure to provide security and safety for their citizens. Since then, we have also completed 96 million tests. That is a phenomenal achievement and we should not downplay that.
As we look to the Bill, it is correct to think about how the resources will be applied until the supply and appropriation Bill is voted on in this House. The Chancellor last week set out a characteristically world-leading Budget, ensuring, to name just a few: the furlough scheme, which has been a lifeline for so many, continues until September; more money for apprenticeships and restart grants to get our worst-hit businesses back up and running; and the extension of universal credit. There are also infrastructure spends across the country, which are a testament to my right hon. Friend’s focus on the next stage of dealing with this pandemic. As we emerge from the public health crisis, we must look to the economic recovery stage.
Accountability and transparency matter, of course, and the Bill does not take away the usual mechanisms that have been in place for ensuring that expenditure is met through the contingency fund and that it is scrutinised. Advances made in this way are presented in the usual way in the estimates booklet and the memorandums that Parliament can scrutinise and vote on.
To hinder the Bill would in my view seriously hinder the Government’s response in dealing with the pandemic. It would risk undermining the measures by the Government to help those who need our urgent support. That is why I am supporting the Bill.

Dawn Butler: It is correct that a contingencies fund Bill is vital when the Government need to react, especially during the pandemic, but it relies on trust. Trust requires transparency, truth and honesty. Most colleagues in this House will have noticed the Conservative party’s habit of gaslighting the nation over the past decade. “We’re all in this together,” Osborne and Cameron said, before axing the safety net that the poorest in our country relied upon. I recently read a quote that said:
“We’re not all in the same boat, but we are going through the same storm”—
some of us are in yachts, some of us are in boats and some of us are in dinghies and just holding on.
Recently, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak promised to take care—

Nigel Evans: Order. I have to correct my hon. Friend—I will put it that way. Please do not refer to current serving Ministers or other Members of Parliament by their names.

Dawn Butler: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Prime Minister recently promised to take care of the nurses who sat at the nation’s bedside during one of our darkest moments, before offering them an insulting and paltry 1% pay rise—a real-terms pay cut. The question of cronyism is no different. Ministers on one hand claim that they did nothing wrong. They say that Opposition Members are stirring up fake news, and that we are not patriotic if we dare to question their actions and how they are spending public funds, yet when the evidence is too powerful and shocking to ignore, when it is so stark that the Government have to respond, they say that their mistakes can be excused because they were rushing to procure vast amounts of equipment in a national crisis. Both those things cannot be true, so which is it? Which do they believe?
Of course, the country is willing to accept that mistakes were made, but that was a long time ago—a year ago, in fact. Ministers must have the humility to admit their mistakes and errors, and work with the Opposition to ensure that the current situation, which has eroded many people’s basic trust in democracy, is never repeated. Supporting this amendment is a start.
The truth is that the evidence is overwhelming: as Byline Times has calculated, more than £900 million in coronavirus-related contracts has been awarded to firms that have donated to the Conservative party—a huge return on their donations. The country’s purse is not the Government’s piggybank. Countless more deals have been awarded to former Government advisers, chums of Dominic Cummings and former drinking pals of the Health Secretary. Ministers may dispute why so many deals have been awarded to firms with close ties to the Conservative party and senior Government figures. Some of those firms were not even suitable or equipped to deliver what was needed.
The reason could be the Government’s infamous VIP lane, which meant that some firms with links to Ministers, MPs and officials were 10 times more likely to win contracts. Some of it could be down to the old boys network—who knows? We still do not know, but we should know before we continue to trust the Government. Some Ministers may know what is going on and why, and what the cause is of this rampant cronyism, but all Ministers and Conservative Members must recognise the basic facts: vast amounts of public money have been spent and wasted on firms with Tory and Government connections. People across the country are angry and disillusioned.
The Conservatives’ own constituents, and constituents of Members on both sides of the House, are questioning why the Conservative party has abandoned its belief in the basic principle of accountable, transparent public spending. It is imperative that Ministers and officials  figure out the root cause of this rampant cronyism, admit their errors and safeguard public money so that, in the future, it cannot end up in the hands of Conservative donors.
Some in the Conservative party might say that the money is not wasted because some of the money that has been given to companies is finding its way back to the Conservative party through donations, but that is wrong and corrupt. If I am wrong in what I am saying, the Minister, when he gets to his feet, must admit the mistakes and errors made.

Anthony Browne: I welcome the Opposition’s interest in this motion. It is incredibly important. I particularly welcome their conversion to the importance of value for money. It is the Conservative party that has always been the party that realises that we are just guardians of public money. It is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money and we should treat it as carefully as if it were our own.
I arrived at City Hall after Ken Livingston was there and when the current Prime Minister was Mayor of London. We went through the accounts and were absolutely shocked at the staff’s attitude towards money—it was just there to be shovelled out the door. We imposed a very strict control regime, which dramatically reduced costs and improved value for money. If Labour Members want to learn more about value for money, I would welcome them to the Conservative Benches, so that we could discuss it.
This whole debate reminds me slightly of discussions that I have often had with environmental activists about nuclear power. They come out with lots of arguments against nuclear power. One by one, those arguments are knocked back. Finally they say, “Well, it costs too much.” When they resort to that argument, we realise that they have lost the argument. The reason the Labour party is focusing so much on value for money is, I fear, not because it has converted to this cause, but because there are no other lines of attack for it to follow.
If we look at the progress of this pandemic since it started, we will see that, at the very beginning, we were really worried about not having enough ventilators. We now have 22,000 ventilators. We have far more ventilators than we need at the moment. Then there was the personal protective equipment crisis—remember that? There was shock, questions and attacks the whole time from the Opposition, who were saying that we did not have enough PPE and asking why we did not have it in stock. Actually, we only made 1% of the PPE in this country. We did not have manufacturers that we could turn to and say, “Can you ramp up supply?” There was a global shortage. We now have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said, 32 billion parts of PPE in stock and 70% of it is made in this country. There is no line of attack that the Labour party can make on PPE.
Then we come to vaccination. The Labour party previously made many attacks on vaccination. What can I say? We all know, everyone knows, the voting public know that it is a great success. It is an absolute triumph and truly world leading, as is so well documented,  thanks mainly to many teams across the NHS and the public sector, but also to the vaccine taskforce led by Kate Bingham.
The Labour party has raised test and trace because of the Public Accounts Committee report yesterday. The report said many things. It did not say that 80% of the cost of test and trace is on the testing. On the testing, we are very much a world leader. I was looking at the figures for the G20 countries—the 20 main countries in the world—and we are doing twice as much testing as any other G20 country in the world. According to Our World in Data, we are doing 10.54 tests per 1,000 people a day in the United Kingdom. The next highest in the G7 is Italy, at 5.2. We are doing four times as much as Germany, and three times as much as Canada. We are truly world-leading in testing and that costs money. It also means that all the children can go back to school. We did 1.5 million tests on the day that they went back to school. It is only because we can do the testing and the tracing that follows that children can go back to school to regain their education and we can slowly return to normality.
All these are great successes and the Labour party should welcome them. The British public can see it: we can see the mood of the nation changing and, fingers crossed, that will continue. However, we are still in the middle of the pandemic. It is not over yet. It is too soon to take the hands off the brakes and say, “Let’s roll down.” Things could go the wrong way and it is absolutely right that the Government continue with their contingency policy, with 12% of supply, in case other things flare up. This is not about spending more money. It is about giving us the ability to spend money should it be needed and I fully welcome it.

Kevin Hollinrake: Accounts mean accountability. Every set of accounts needs contingency lines—sometimes quite annoyingly, in my experience—but this crisis has shown the importance of having a contingency fund.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister: the Government have acted swiftly, decisively and with a great deal of flexibility in respect of the schemes they have rolled out. Almost every businessperson I speak to in my constituency is supportive of what the Government have done in this regard. It is not just the Government who have acted swiftly and decisively; bodies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have done a tremendous job in getting some of the grant aid out to businesses, and we should be grateful for those efforts.
When I listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—who I do not think is even in his place at the moment—all I got was a deep suspicion of the private sector. It was quite astounding. It was reminiscent of that great Churchill quote:
“Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.”
I just do not understand why the private sector is still anathema to Labour, even though it has been responsible for so many things in this crisis, not least the development of the vaccine, the first of which, the Pfizer vaccine, was rolled out without any public support whatsoever.
Things such as bounce back loans and coronavirus business interruption loans have all been delivered by the private sector, through the banks. As I am sure you recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not shy of criticising the banks, but this year they have done a tremendous job in getting the money out to businesses, yet we see no recognition from those on the Opposition Front Bench of what the private sector has done throughout this crisis.
All the money that flows through the contingencies fund will of course be accounted for and the Government will be held to account for the related spending. It is important that the Opposition should also be held to account for their spending. I find it quite astounding that the shadow Minister talks about value for money; I have sat through so many debates over the past five years in which Labour has called time and again for more spending via pensions, social security, health services and social care—whatever—despite our spending challenges and without any assessment of value for money. Labour just wants that money to be spent without any consequence or accountability. That cannot be right and the shadow Minister’s claim about value for money was quite laughable. Every bit of spending has to have somebody to pay for it, and that is, of course, the taxpayer, which is why we have to be careful and judicious with Government or public money. It comes from the taxpayer.
Most recently, Labour has been calling for a greater increase than 1% for nurses. Who is not sympathetic to that? But I do not hear Labour saying what pay rise it would give or how it would pay for it. It is surely a responsibility of any responsible party that wants to be in government to say how it would pay for things.
Finally, I think the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was quite disgraceful in some of her comments. I may be wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I thought she described Ministers as corrupt. I think that is something you might look at, because it is entirely inappropriate and entirely inaccurate. I am very much looking forward to talking more in Committee about procurement and why the Opposition are wrong again.

Bill Esterson: The Government’s test and trace scheme, outsourced to companies such as Serco, has been one of the most scandalous wastes of public expenditure in living memory. It is quite difficult to imagine what £37 billion looks like, but here are some examples. In 2015, the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital was constructed at a cost of around £75 million; £37 billion is enough money to build nearly 500 brand-new state-of-the-art hospitals. With around 670,000 nurses on the permanent NHS payroll, £37 billion is enough to give every single nurse a pay rise of not £3.50 a week but around £50,000. But instead, what did the Chancellor, in his recent Budget, announce for nurses? Not even, actually, a pay rise of £3.50 a week, but, in real terms, a pay cut of about £5 a week.
It is a disgrace that this Government are so profligate with their cash that they will give £37 billion to private outsourcing giants, including Serco, and at the same time choose to take money away from our nurses with that real-terms pay cut. Of course, if that £37 billion  had kept people safe—if it had worked—that huge sum of money might have represented value for money. Yet as the National Audit Office said:
“The Department of Health & Social Care justified the scale of investment…on the basis that an effective test and trace system would help avoid a second national lockdown; but since its creation we have had two more lockdowns.”
The ineffectiveness of the outsourced test and trace system is one of the reasons the UK has experienced the worst death rate of any major country. Yesterday, Serco’s top two executives, one of whom is the brother of a Conservative MP, received £7.4 million each in pay, including bonuses worth about £5.5 million. The company has previously handed out over £17 million in dividends to shareholders while reaping the rewards of its role in the grossly wasteful and ineffective test and trace programme. Today we read that the Business Department has invited Serco bosses, among others, to apply for new year’s honours. We now have a Government all too happy to waste billions of pounds on dodgy contracts for companies with Conservative party links, and when the scheme invariably fails, they give the people responsible a title as a consolation prize, all the while starving our public sector of funding and our public sector workers of pay.
After £37 billion, no test and trace, and the failure to prevent the second and third lockdowns, Ministers and those profiteering from this say it was a success. The National Audit Office says that there is no evidence of effectiveness. England has had the worst death rate in Europe. Other countries were able to balance value for money with support for the public’s health and the economy. If other countries can do better, the Government at Westminster can and must do better too.
All this is to say nothing of the disastrous PPE contracts. PPE Medpro was incorporated on 12 May. Just 44 days later, it was awarded a contract worth £122 million for single-use medical robes, which it intended to import. The contract was not advertised, but the company had links to the Conservative party and a Conservative peer. In contrast, my constituents who own Florence Roby Ltd, a uniform supplier with a track record of more than 50 years’ trading, spent months trying to get a contract for medical robes but were given the runaround and eventually had to lay off staff. I am afraid that these examples illustrate perfectly everything that has been wrong with procurement during this crisis: wastefulness and poor value for money. No wonder so many people think this is corrupt.
Compare this with the situation in Wales, where decisions on PPE are devolved. Since the outset of the pandemic, well over 450 million items of PPE have been distributed in Wales, and the vast majority of the PPE issued has been directly sourced by NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership, with all contracts awarded subject to robust governance. That includes additional scrutiny from a finance governance group, and all contracts over £1 million are approved by the Welsh Government directly. The UK Health Secretary has said that urgency is the reason that the Conservatives paid billions of pounds to their mates for PPE contracts, but that does not excuse the fact that companies with connections to the Conservative party such as PPE Medpro—which, remember, was awarded a contract 44 days after incorporation—were 10 times more likely to win contracts than those without those contacts.
In Wales, with a Labour Government, the situation was just as urgent, but the oversight and accountability were in place. Instead of waste, we have seen local public health boards delivering effective contact tracing, without the scandalous payments that we have seen in England of up to £7,000 a day to consultants. The Westminster Government must be able to spend the money needed to address the public health emergencies of the pandemic—everybody agrees on that much—but they must also listen to the National Audit Office, put an end to the cronyism and put public health first. The day of reckoning will surely come for the gross negligence, waste and cronyism displayed by this Conservative Government.

Jamie Stone: May I use this opportunity to personally thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has met the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group several times over the last few weeks? That was good of him, and it has been a constructive relationship with Opposition MPs.
That takes me to the first of two brief points that I want to make. Clearly my constituency is very different from other constituencies. It is vast, it is very far away, and we have particular challenges with distance, sparsity of population and even temperature. During the pandemic, my constituency has had particular problems to be dealt with. I understand, and indeed I support, the mechanism that we are debating, which is about getting the money to where it is needed at the right speed. It might be useful if the Government agreed to meet Opposition MPs such as myself slightly more often, to look at the overall package and how it is hitting or not hitting where it should.
I will give one example. I have said many times in the House that businesses involved in tourism and hospitality are fundamental to the economy of my constituency and, indeed, of all the highlands and islands. The package of support during the pandemic needs to be best tailored to ensuring that those businesses can be got off their knees and got going again once the pandemic starts to recede. It would be tragic if we lost any of those businesses during this time, because that would impoverish our tourism product, which people come from not only most of the UK but all over the world to see.
We need a tailored package for tourism and hospitality businesses, and I am happy to talk to the Government about that. There is a precedent. Last summer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came to my constituency, and, as he will agree, we had a constructive meeting with tourism businesses, which was helpful. I am quite open about this: I will work with a Minister of any political colour if it is for the betterment of my constituents and the economy of my constituency.
The second and final point I want to make is one that needs to be stressed. A lot of this money is going to the devolved institutions—the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government. I support the Secretary of State for Scotland’s plea that, when the pandemic is over, we look at what the Scottish Government have actually spent the money on. As other Members have said, this is not our money—it  is public money; it is taxpayers’ money—and I want to be absolutely sure that it has been used in the most prudent fashion by the Scottish Government and has gone where it should have gone. I support the Scottish Secretary’s plea for some sort of audit, balance sheet or, if you like, profit and loss account to be produced at the end of this.
I have listened to the debate with the greatest of interest—there have been some very high-quality speeches—and I shall listen to the rest with great interest.

James Murray: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond briefly to the debate and pick up on some of the contributions. First, I would like to address a comment by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who seemed to claim that I was not in my place during his speech. I would like to reassure him that I have been listening carefully throughout in the virtual Chamber, but perhaps he was not here earlier when I began my contribution virtually.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) made a powerful and important case about the link between trust and transparency and how important it is for us to take action in this place to reassert that link. She also set out how insulting the 1% pay rise—a real-terms pay cut—is to the nurses in our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the huge waste that has happened through Test and Trace and the private outsourcing giants that have benefited from that money. It is telling that no Conservative Members today addressed Test and Trace and the spending on that programme, as far as I could tell. I found it curious, however, that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), when trying to make a case around value for money, chose to focus on the time that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) spent in City Hall, given that one of the most notable achievements of that right hon. Member in that office was to oversee £46 million of public money being spent on a garden bridge that was never built.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, we will not be opposing the Bill’s Second Reading, but in the Committee debate that follows, I will set out how our new clause aims to introduce a new standard of transparency, which we believe is urgently needed after the Government’s approach over the last year.

Jesse Norman: I will not detain the House for long. By leave of the House, let me just say a couple of words. I thank all Members who have spoken so far. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) for the Opposition’s support for this, but I think he was mistaken in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was making a point about the absence of any person on the Labour Front Bench during the debate. That has largely been a characteristic of this debate so far, and that is a pity. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his recognition of the way in which I and colleagues at the Treasury have leant into the difficult issues he raised in relation to the excluded. That does not bear directly on this debate, but the wider point he makes is welcome.
I am mindful that this debate has featured several contributions from Labour Members that have resolutely failed to engage with the substance of the Bill under discussion, and that is a particular shame. This is a party that talks about proper accountability but simply finds it impossible to exercise that accountability in the Chamber by asking the Minister questions. I hope that hon. Members will do that in the next stage of the debate, so that we can have a proper discussion about this. They have, after all, just had a long period of debate on the Budget in which any of the points they wished to raise—irrelevant to the Contingencies Fund Bill but relevant to that topic—could have been discussed. Instead, they have indulged in cheap and irrelevant political posturing, and that is a particular shame—all the more so as their contributions have had the effect of delaying an important and much needed debate in this House called by the Backbench Business Committee on International Women’s Day.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be issued out of, or paid into, the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to increasing, in relation to times before 1 April 2022, the percentage specified in section 1(1) of the Contingencies Fund Act 1974 to a percentage not exceeding 12%.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day).
[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Nigel Evans: Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will carry out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chair of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee rather than Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1 - Temporary increase in capital limit of Contingencies Fund

Questionproposed,That the clausestandpart of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Contingencies Fund: reporting in financial year 2021-22—
“(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons within 15 days of the end of each calendar month in the financial year 2021-22 a report which includes a complete list of each advance from the Contingencies Fund, in each of the following categories—
(a) during the Vote on Account period, to meet urgent cash requirements (other than supporting a new service) in excess of the net cash requirement granted in the Vote on Account;
(b) to meet the cash requirement supporting an urgent service which Parliament has already approved through specific enabling legislation but for which existing provision is not available;
(c) to meet the cash requirement supporting a new service which is urgent and cannot await Parliamentary approval of both the specific enabling legislation and the necessary Estimate;
(d) to meet a further urgent cash requirement for existing services when provision for the total net cash requirement on the Estimate is exhausted; and
(e) in the case of an Estimate where expenditure is largely financed from income, advances made in anticipation of the receipt of cash associated with such income.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include a reference to any written ministerial statement made to the House of Commons in relation to each advance from the Contingencies Fund in financial year 2021-22.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include any relevant formal written direction to the accounting officer where a Minister of the Crown decided to continue with a course of action which the accounting officer had advised against.
(4) If a report under subsection (1) mentions in relation to subsection (2) or subsection (3) anything in connection with procurement from the private sector, the Treasury must refer the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General for a preliminary opinion on the regularity and propriety of the procurement referred to.
(5) Nothing in this section affects access by the National Audit Office to any documents as provided for under section 8 of the National Audit Act 1983.”
This new clause is intended to enhance accountability to Parliament for as long as the increased flexibility of the Contingencies Fund is in place, and in particular to provide an additional check on the regularity and propriety of any procurement decisions which lead to advances being required from the Contingencies Fund.

James Murray: The new clause is intended to ensure that the Government learn from the past year and, as I set out in my earlier contribution, not only recognise that they have repeatedly done too little, too late to protect the public’s health and the economy through the outbreak, but make serious and structural reforms to how they initiate and examine the spending of public money. The new clause would ensure that the extra financial freedoms that Parliament grants in the Bill are used in a manner that reflects the importance of transparency with public money.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I and other hon. Members made on Second Reading, but address the substance of the new clause. Our new clause is simple. Subsection (1) sets out that, in respect of each plausible category of unforeseen Government spending—urgent cash requirements for existing services; urgent cash requirements for new services, whether yet approved in principle or not; increased cash requirements; and short-term cash flow issues—the Treasury must lay before the House a report of all the advances made that month.
Subsection (2) sets out that each payment from the fund should be explicitly associated with ministerial statements, which explain the purpose of such expenditure. Subsections (3) sets out that where such payments have been carried out only on the basis of ministerial direction, the fact and nature of that direction should also be disclosed. We fully accept that on occasion ministerial directions are a vital part of how our country and political system responds quickly and effectively to unforeseen circumstances. There are occasions when the accounting officer will not be able to align urgent needs with normal accounting procedures. What matters is not the fact of the direction, but its nature.
Subsection (4) ensures that where rapid procurement decisions are taken, they provide an opportunity for the Government to improve and are assessed as such. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is crucial in our system of parliamentary control over public finances. There are lessons to be learned from the specific practice of emergency procurement. It is wrong to see each instance of rapid procurement as a special case.
Subsection (5) reflects the premise of subsection (4) and ensures that there is no conflict with the wider role of the National Audit Office. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the new clause in the spirit in which we propose it.
The Financial Secretary will be aware of the many extraordinary and frankly irregular arrangements, which have been explored in the court and in the media recently, for the disbursement of public money in the past year. I will not take the Committee through the full annotated catalogue as time is so limited, but I will mention just two of the most egregious examples to emphasise our concerns.
First, there was the contract given to Randox Laboratories for £133 million in respect of tests. Randox is a company that we understand is advised by a Conservative Member. The Department of Health and  Social Care ordered that 750,000 of those tests be withdrawn from use for safety reasons. Secondly, at least £150 million of a £252 million face mask contract with Ayanda Capital seems to have been wasted owing to the unsuitability of one type of mask in the order. We understand that the contract included FFP2 masks, which did not meet requirements for use by frontline healthcare workers because they had ear loops instead of head loops. The sum of £150 million pays the salaries of some 4,000 nurses. That fact alone should make clear why it is so important for public money to be spent on improving the lives of those we serve.
The new clause sets out a new standard of transparency that would pull Ministers up, force them to sharpen their focus on value for money, and ensure that we have more money to spend on the things that matter to us all. With such concerns in mind, I ask the Committee to support the new clause.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Andrew Jones, let me just say that I am grateful for the restraint that people demonstrated on Second Reading. We have a rather extensive call list for the International Women’s Day debate that follows, so if people could show the same restraint in Committee, whether they are remote or in the Chamber, I would be grateful. A number of people withdrew from the Second Reading debate; if anyone wishes to withdraw from Committee stage, please will they do so in the normal manner, through the Speaker’s Office?

Andrew Jones: I will keep my remarks as short as possible; I fully recognise that we have a very well-subscribed and important debate to follow.
I read new clause 1 with interest, but it should be rejected. On Second Reading, I outlined the transparency and accountability mechanisms already in place when funds are drawn from the Contingencies Fund. I will not repeat any of that, but what the Contingencies Fund does not need is extra layers of bureaucracy, and that is what the Opposition are seeking to bring in. The whole point of the fund is to facilitate speed of response. Adding monthly reporting to the existing reporting is not necessary, and it goes against the whole purpose of the fund.
For one year, in the midst of the greatest health crisis in a century and the consequential biggest economic crash in three centuries, the suggestion from the Opposition is more bureaucracy. What problem are they seeking to solve? Accounting officers are still accountable. Departments must still notify Parliament. The Contingencies Fund is managed by Treasury officials. The agreed procedures must be followed.
The Opposition also want to bring in extra measures when dealing with the private sector. How does dealing with the private sector reflect the cash flow in a Department? Liabilities are liabilities, to whichever organisations they are owed. Speed of response is need-based, not sector-based.
Basically, what we have here is Labour distrust of the private sector underpinning its suggestion. It is not relevant to the Bill, and it underlines Labour’s lack of relevance to the nation. That is why the new clause should be rejected.

Saqib Bhatti: I cannot support the Opposition’s new clause 1 because, in my view, it would do nothing but introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy where, frankly, sufficient and robust transparency and accountability systems are already in place.
As I said on Second Reading, of course accountability and transparency matter. The Bill does not take away the usual mechanisms already in place to ensure that expenditure met through the Contingencies Fund is scrutinised. Requiring private sector procurement to be referred to the National Audit Office would do exactly what businesses cry out against time and again when it comes to procurement practices. They want less bureaucracy and less burden, not more unnecessary red tape that would hinder engagement from the private sector.
To me, the new clause speaks to the intent of the Opposition and their general attitude to the private sector. It does not recognise the crucial role that business has played over the last 12 months in helping to tackle one of the greatest public health crises of our times. It does not recognise the businesses that otherwise would have been shut down—Formula 1 teams such as McLaren, for example—that adapted their processes to make ventilators; the companies, such as Burberry, that retooled to make personal protective equipment; or the companies, such as the National Exhibition Centre in my constituency, that gave up part of their business to build Nightingale hospitals to ensure that the national health service was not overwhelmed.
The new clause does not recognise, either, the big pharma companies that came up with new drugs at unprecedented rates, using innovative methods that only the private sector can come up with to vaccinate and protect the most vulnerable in our society. Frankly, it is time that the Opposition recognised the role that the private sector played in overcoming this crisis. While it is not yet done, we on the Government side of the House certainly will not forget that role.
While I am on the subject of intent, I commend the Government for their aspiration to reform procurement rules. The Green Paper put forward by the Government puts value for money and transparency right at the heart of the United Kingdom’s procurement rules. The Government buy around £292 billion-worth of services from the private sector. Their proposed reforms will allow UK procurement rules to be more modern and flexible, allowing the Government to consider things such as social value, including economic, social and environmental factors.
These new measures will also allow competition for Government contracts under £4.7 million for public works and £122,000 for goods and services to be limited to small businesses, whether they are voluntary, community or social enterprises. Fundamentally, that will improve the quality of suppliers’ output, and it will also increase competition, ensuring that taxpayers get a better deal while our small and medium-sized businesses have greater access to Government procurement contracts.
That intent can only be applauded, in contrast to the Opposition’s desire to make the process clunkier, more difficult and less accessible.
On accountability, as has been said, Ministers cannot choose to use the Contingencies Fund. That is managed entirely by Treasury officials, and the accounting officer  must ensure that advances are given in line with strict rules agreed between Parliament, the National Audit Office, and the Treasury. Such rules can be found in the Estimates Manual. Finally, business is and can be a force for good. We would do well to recognise that.

Sarah Owen: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which hopes to improve the transparency behind emergency spending that we are being asked to sign off. When the Conservative party took office 11 years ago, it promised people transparency and responsible spending. The Prime Minister’s predecessor even told us that sunlight was the best disinfectant—could we not do with some disinfectant to rid us of the stench of cronyism right now?
One hundred and eight million pounds to a pest control firm to make PPE; £60 million on antibody tests that did not work. To top it off, a £37 billion test and trace system that at times did not test and did not trace. It was run not by clinicians or the NHS, but by a failed phone company executive, who just so happened to be one of the Prime Minister’s mates from the other place.
Cronyism, irresponsible spending and sweetheart deals that handed the public’s taxes to their mates are what this Government are all about—a £133 million testing contract to a Tory donor, £108 million to Serco, and a £40,000 pay rise to Dominic Cummings. Under this Government, someone who breaks the rules and fails at their job gets a pay rise; those who save people’s lives get a pay cut. If the Conservative party cannot be trusted to spend people’s taxes wisely, it does not deserve to serve our country.
The Minister asked for questions, and I am sure we all look forward to some answers. Will he tell the House why as much as £11 million was spent on the initial trial version of the NHS Test and Trace app before it was abandoned? Will he confirm whether he personally played any part in recommending contractors to the Government over the past year? We are often told by the party of Government that money cannot be found to feed hungry schoolkids, or that the healthcare heroes who looked after our loved ones during the pandemic cannot have a pay rise. We are told by Conservative peers that nurses should be grateful for the job security they have.
The public have a right to know how their money is being spent. Covid contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors have now risen to almost £2 billion. Such money could have provided free school meals to each of the 1.4 million children in poverty, including nearly 4,000 children in Luton North. If there is money for the Prime Minister’s mates, there is money to feed hungry kids. If we can find £30 million for the bloke down the pub, we can find money to give nurses, and every other healthcare worker, a pay increase.
Conservative Members will say there was no choice at the start of the crisis and that it was an emergency, as it was. However, there is always a choice. Instead of turning to established PPE providers from the UK safety industry, Ministers chose a deal that handed £30 million to the Health and Social Care Secretary’s mate from down the pub. That is a cruel and blatant failure by this Government. The Bill asks us to sign off up to £266 billion in emergency loans by the Government. That might be necessary, but it is unnecessary for such a number to go unchecked.
It is our job as MPs across the House to hold the Government to account. The public expect better and for us to spend their money properly, which is why Labour has tabled this amendment. We are not saying that the Government should not do everything in their power to help people in an emergency; we are saying that they must never forget whose money they are spending, and who they need to answer to in the end: the British people.

Anthony Browne: I agree with the shadow Minister that we need accountability and transparency, but there is already a whole framework for public spending. As others have said, all the amendment does is introduce more bureaucracy into the Contingency Fund, without adding any value from the perspective of public accountability.
We need to learn the lessons from all this. It is an unprecedented thing that hopefully will never happen again, but we must ensure that we learn those lessons. Fortunately, there are bodies that help us learn those lessons, such as the National Audit Office, which has already done several reports into procurement.
Given that the speeches made by various Members on the Opposition Benches have been all about scoring cheap party political points, casting aspersions on the Government and Ministers and so on, I thought it was worth quoting the finding of the main National Audit Office report about the issues to which they are referring. It said:
“In the examples we examined where there were potential conflicts of interest involving ministers, we found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
That is the National Audit Office, which has strong powers of investigation.
I find it rather disturbing that the Opposition are trying to use this important issue just to score cheap political points. I suppose I should not; I am a new politician, and I should get used to it. What I find most concerning about the Labour party is its clear disdain for the private sector. It is using this issue to criticise private sector manufacturers. The speaker before me, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for example, criticised companies that were trying to produce PPE. We did not have a PPE industry in the UK at the start of this—we imported it all—and I welcome the fact that lots of companies that had not made PPE put in the effort to develop it and then supply it to the national health service. That is to be welcomed.
The drugs company in my constituency, AstraZeneca, did not do any diagnostic testing. That was not what it did; it had no arm doing that. It said, “Right, we will learn how to do this”, and it did it. It set up a whole arm to do diagnostic testing. It did that at no profit, and that is now a huge part of the testing industry in the UK. It also agreed to produce the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at no profit to itself and to give that to the developing world on a not-for-profit basis throughout the pandemic.
That is a private sector company, as is Pfizer, which produces the Pfizer vaccine, and Moderna, which does the Moderna vaccine. All these are private sector companies coming to our rescue and to the rescue of other countries around the world when we need it, and that is very  much to be welcomed. I wish the Opposition would pay tribute to the efforts of the private sector, often working in collaboration with the public sector. It is a partnership.

Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Anthony Browne: I will just give way to the hon. Lady before I finish.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about money going out into the private sector, but a lot of this contingency money has gone into the public sector. The key point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted, that it is taxpayers’ money. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should have clear oversight and regular reporting of how taxpayers’ money is being spent.

Anthony Browne: I agree, and I welcome the points that the hon. Lady makes. I did say in my speech on Second Reading that I welcome the fact that the Labour party have this new-found interest in value for money, because I absolutely believe that taxpayers’ money is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money and it should be treated as such. As I said earlier, we have sufficient mechanisms for accountability and transparency. We do not need this new clause, and I will not support it.

Kevin Hollinrake: I would like to speak to new clause 1. First, I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for putting the record straight. It was a reflection of the fact that there was no Opposition Minister on duty. It is suboptimal to have an Opposition Minister speaking by video link: Members have no opportunity to challenge some of his statements, many of which I thought were absolutely out of order. You are obviously the judge of that, Chair, but to call Ministers corrupt, as other Members have in this debate, or to accuse them of cronyism, is basically bringing this House into disrepute.
Yet again, we have the Opposition’s obsession that everything public sector is good and everything private sector is bad. It is simply outrageous. It goes back to that sturdy horse analogy. It is pulling the whole wagon, whether it be vaccine companies or indeed our GPs. Our GPs have done a wonderful job disseminating the vaccine to so many people, and it is heart-warming to go to those centres and see that. GPs are private practices. The health service has never been totally public sector, and we should recognise that. We should recognise the benefits that the private sector brings, just as the public sector clearly brings huge benefits, too.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) that this new clause would simply bring an unnecessary added layer of bureaucracy. I absolutely support the need for accountability and the proper assessment of where taxpayers’ money is spent—we absolutely must be responsible about that—but I do not know where it would end under the new clause, because much of the money that we have provided to deal with the coronavirus crisis has been provided through the private sector, not least the loans through the banks. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) seemed to think that there were no checks on that  process, which is clearly not the case. Banks go through a lot of checks, even when the Government are guaranteeing loans, so that is simply not correct.
The new clause deals with procurement. The comments on procurement and allegations of corruption and cronyism just do not sit with the facts. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) rightly said, there is no evidence of ministerial involvement in any of the decisions. The NAO report on procurement said:
“Government was having to work at pace…in a highly competitive international market”
and
“secured unprecedented volumes of essential supplies…to protect front-line workers.”
Do we honestly want to go through a complex procurement process at a time when we are desperate for supplies?
This is obviously a case of the Opposition trying to score cheap political points. I think the public look at it and think “a plague on all your houses” when outlandish claims of corruption are made. Clearly, some of those claims will land, and the public think that all politicians are corrupt, but that is clearly not the case. The vast majority of people who come into politics do so for the best of reasons. It is deeply unhelpful and totally inaccurate.
Finally, of course we need to improve procurement. In December, an excellent Green Paper was published. It was all about value for money, transparency, the cutting of red tape and, crucially, making it much easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to get involved in the procurement of public sector contracts, even to the extent that there would not have to be the international competition that the EU rules used to require and we could have geographical conditions and thereby benefit SMEs in a local area. I absolutely support that approach. There are lessons to be learned and there is room for some really good reform, but the new clause should not be supported.

Nigel Evans: The next speaker, by video link, is Jamie Stone. [Interruption.] Jamie, you may be on mute—I know that you are audio only. [Interruption.] We will try to get back to you. Waiting in the wings is Meg Hillier.

Meg Hillier: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Bill and perhaps slay some of the misstatements that I have already heard in the short while I have been in the Chamber.
First, I should point out to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) that value for money in respect of taxpayer spending is not a new-found interest for most of us on the Opposition Benches. I have spent 27 years being responsible for either spending taxpayers’ money wisely or scrutinising that spending. I am very aware, as are the shadow Chancellor and her team, that every pound of public money saved is a pound to spend on something else. We may disagree about what that something else might be, but scrutiny is really important.
Contingencies Fund Bills are interesting pieces of legislation. They are about as old as the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and are an important mechanism for making sure that the Government cannot just routinely  spend over budget. It is fair to say that in this House we are very bad at scrutinising Government spending. That is not down to individual Members or the official Opposition; it is because the structures of this place do not allow us properly to discuss estimates, excess votes and so on. In fact, some time ago the OECD said that as early as the 18th century our scrutiny of finances in this place was “reduced to hollow ritual.”
The change in this legislation, which will allow the increase in contingency funding, has been rushed through. I do not deny that it is necessary to have additional contingency. The way it works normally is that if a Department overspends on its budget as granted, albeit inadequately, by this House, the matter then comes to the Public Accounts Committee and we have to examine whether the excess is justifiable and reasonable. Pretty much our only weapon is the ability to call in the officials who have made a mistake and get them to explain the issue in public, but then a Government majority can certainly agree the excess vote regardless.
In Ghana—Mr Evans, you might be interested to know this, and officials might be quaking as I say it—if an official overspends taxpayers’ money, they have to go to court, and if they take an appeal to court, they have to pay up front half of the money that has been wasted. Certainly, that would sharpen minds.
The point is that it is right that we have a Contingencies Fund Bill. I accept it is necessary, but I welcome new clause 1, because the mechanisms for oversight of this are very flimsy; they are reports on paper after the event. This is not about more bureaucracy. I see it as being about greater transparency. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which has had an important constitutional position in this place for 160 years, I get passed information by Government—from Ministers and senior officials—about issues relating to the finances of Government, sometimes confidentially, and that is counted as the scrutiny of Parliament.
I believe there is a very important role for the constitutional position of the Public Accounts Committee and thereby the Chair, a role I am privileged to occupy at the moment—it is not about me, it is about the position—but that is not enough scrutiny. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and spending eye-watering sums of money—hundreds of billions of pounds—with the public sector and the private sector. It does not matter where the money goes, in this sense; it is about scrutinising that expenditure and making sure that Treasury Ministers, whom I would have thought would be aligned with me completely on this issue, are clear that we are not allowing Departments to overspend willy-nilly. Although the Treasury has its checks, it is important and vital that Parliament has its checks too and that we have sunlight on these issues in real time. This is important, and I would say that the new clause is really pretty anodyne. It is saying that we want better reporting to the House of what the Contingencies Fund Bill already allows to the Government.
The National Audit Office has been much quoted, and I do not have the exact phrase in front of me—forgive me, Mr Evans, but for once I paraphrase, which I really try not to do—but the NAO has looked in detail, as other Members have commented, at the Government’s approach to procurement, and this is its clear message. All these allegations are out there, but part of the reason for that is the lack of transparency and the lack  of information being published in real time on some of these issues. We have seen, heard and talked about in this place the many contracts that were not published on time, and that undermines public and parliamentary trust in the process. Whether or not anything has gone wrong, it is undermining trust, and people start asking questions and laying down allegations whether or not they are true.
It is in Government’s interests, the taxpayer’s interests and Parliament’s interests to agree to this new clause. I am disappointed—I am embarrassed really—that those on the Treasury Bench can come forward with a change at such short notice and not have a meaningful discussion about what is a reasonable new clause to allow this place greater scrutiny over what are unprecedented amounts of spending in the middle of a pandemic. At a time like this, we need more transparency, not less. This is actually a minor change. It is not about bureaucracy; it is about accountability and transparency, and taxpayers deserve better.

Charlotte Nichols: Labour’s new clause seeks to make contingency spending more transparent and accountable to our Parliament and, through us, to the public—taking back control, if you will. It is right that Governments have the flexibility to act in an emergency such as this pandemic, but this greater latitude for Ministers should oblige them to be additionally vigilant about the value for money of the decisions that they make and the contracts that they sign. This has unfortunately not been the case. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, this year we have seen case after case of appalling mis-spending of taxpayer money, too often on procurement from Tory friends and donors—with, according to The Times in November, £1.5 billion to Tory-linked firms. Companies and individuals with no track record of producing the materials needed were given vast sums on a promise, and businesses in constituencies such as mine, with experience in manufacturing this sort of equipment, were denied on spurious grounds.
Some of the examples sound as though they come from an old episode of “Yes Minister”: £150 million of the £252 million of unusable face masks ordered from an investment firm advised by an adviser to the President of the Board of Trade; a £60 million contract to provide free laptops for disadvantaged pupils that delivered less than half of what was needed, leaving too many pupils in Warrington North without the tech they needed to learn; and £208 million to provide food boxes wholesale for people who were clinically sheltering, at a cost of £44 a box, when analysis showed that the content could have been bought for £26 from their local Tesco. There was the £133 million to a Tory donor, a private healthcare firm, to make testing kits that were withdrawn for safety reasons. Its contract was actually extended for another six months for a further £375 million, without any other companies being invited to bid. During this time, consultants have been employed on up to £7,000 a day, equivalent to £1.5 million a year, by a Government who believe that nurses and other NHS staff should not even receive a pay rise at least in line with inflation.
We understand that there was an urgency to get contracts in place for PPE in particular, but this was not just a case of suck it and see, as Ministers doubled down  on their projects, such as the £37 billion on the outsourced test and trace programme—or test and waste, as it is increasingly known locally. The National Audit Office says that this incredible amount of money has been spent for no clear impact, while the skills and expertise of our local public health staff were spurned. Should we not be demanding better?
We understand that the Government had to act quickly to put contracts in place at the beginning of the pandemic, but we are now a full calendar year on from then. They should no longer be operating in crisis mode, but should be able to make clear, sensible and justifiable decisions. Since the Chancellor announced that he is to run the biggest deficit since the second world war, with public debt at over 100% of GDP, I think our constituents should expect us to be as open about our financial decisions as we can possibly be. It is not onerous to request that the Government make a monthly report on its contingencies expenditure, and improved transparency would help to halt bad decisions earlier, rather than waiting for spendthrift contracts to finally be revealed in court.
This is a reasonable and responsible new clause. A fiscally sound Government should not fear it or have any objection to it.

Ruth Jones: This is a technical Bill, but it is important and so is parliamentary authorisation of public expenditure. That authorisation is an absolutely crucial part of our democracy and of the principle of parliamentary control over the decisions taken by Ministers in this Government.
Of course, I accept that the Government need to be able to act swiftly and decisively, and that financial control provisions may need to be relaxed proportionate to the need for the Government to take unforeseen and unforeseeable actions to reduce, resolve and mitigate the threats we face. As such, I fully accept the approach taken by the shadow Minister and support the fact that Labour is not opposing the Bill. However, while it is vital that the Government have the space and ability to respond to the crisis, it is vital that Ministers do not take the people of this country for fools. Contracts for cronies, pals from the pub and family members cannot be the order of the day and must be rooted out fast.
The Tories, as we have already heard, have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds across Government during the pandemic, from failed tracing apps to useless PPE to insufficient provision for disadvantaged children. The analysis by my party and other independent organisations shows that the Government have made the wrong decisions throughout the crisis. I hope they will listen and learn. Every penny of public money must be accounted for and the people who pay their taxes must be able to see that these monies are spent wisely and properly.
I support the Bill. I hope Ministers will accept Labour’s new clause and will look to spend the people’s money wisely, sensibly and properly.

Naseem Shah: We recognise that in the circumstances of a global pandemic the Government need to be able to act swiftly and decisively, and that financial control provisions may need to be relaxed proportionate to the need for the Government to take bold actions to reduce, resolve and mitigate the threats we face. However, we know full well that the  Government’s record on proper and transparent procurement processes, and on securing value for money on public spending for emergency purposes, has been shameful.
The Times estimates that during the crisis £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ cash has been given to companies linked to the Conservative party with no prior experience of supplying the Government, from failed tracing apps to useless PPE to insufficient provision for disadvantaged children. Analysis by Labour shows that the Government have made the wrong decisions time and time again throughout the crisis.
That is exactly the story of Tory waste, negligence and cronyism, but the Tories want a pat on the back for spending over £700 million on coveralls, despite NHS records showing only 500,000 out of 13 million were actually used. In April, £16 million-worth of antibody tests were sourced from two Chinese firms. Two million units were purchased, but the test did not work. A PPE contract worth £108 million was handed to a pest control company, PestFix, which has just 16 members of staff. Some of the masks failed checks by the Health and Safety Executive and emails obtained by the BBC suggest that the HSE came under political pressure to ensure that PestFix’s PPE passed necessary quality assurance tests.
Many companies, often better qualified to produce PPE, but lacking political connections, were completely shut out. One such example is Multibrands International based in my constituency. It is a British manufacturer that had already been producing PPE for China. Its owner, Rizwana Hussain, spent months trying to reach Government officials through public channels, but because she did not have the Health Secretary’s WhatsApp number and she was not on a VIP list, Rizwana and Multibrands International lost out. Let us not forget the £108 million for Serco for contact tracing and the £84 million for Sitel. Those services were never fit for purpose, forcing local authorities to take matters into their own hands.
Just yesterday, the National Audit Office released a scathing report on Test and Trace, saying that it was unclear whether its specific contribution to reducing infection levels as opposed to other measures introduced to tackle the pandemic has justified its costs. Time and again, this Government have failed struggling families during the pandemic. Again, businesses, small and large—despite their struggles—charitable organisations and community groups in my constituency did the Government’s job and worked tirelessly to provide free school meals to children across the Bradford district.
The simple story is this: the Government had millions to hand wastefully to their friends, but for those who worked day and night on hospital wards a pay cut and a clap are all they get. This must never happen again. Labour has tabled an amendment and will press it to a vote later today so that we can improve transparency of emergency spending from the contingency fund. Never again can we let such Tory waste, negligence and cronyism take place.

Rachel Hopkins: I refer  to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union.
Parliamentary authorisation of public expenditure is critical, but we all recognise the need for this Bill to ensure that the Government can act quickly to support the economy. That said, the Government should not be able to act without accountability and transparency. I support the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) with regard to transparency and scrutiny. Indeed, just this morning, as part of business questions, the Leader of the House reiterated the point that Members have a right and a duty to hold the Government to account. He also said that scrutiny leads to better government, and that it is in the interests of Government that scrutiny takes place.
It is with those principles in mind that I want to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which seeks to improve Government accountability to Parliament for as long as the increased flexibility of the contingency fund is in place. I want to speak specifically with regard to the checks on the regularity, propriety and value for money of any Government procurement decisions, particularly the importance of the reporting of any written ministerial directions given, so that Parliament can be clear when Ministers have decided to override objections made by senior civil servants.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government’s record on transparent procurement processes and securing value for money on public spending has been, sadly, too often completely inexcusable. Despite NHS Test and Trace being allocated a total of £37 billion and a Conservative peer being handed the top job, the Public Accounts Committee’s report on test, track and trace made this finding. In terms of tackling the pandemic, it said:
“There is still no clear evidence to judge NHST&T’s overall effectiveness.”
I also ask the Minister whether he has reflected on yesterday’s report by the National Audit Office on Test and Trace and whether it contained any lessons to be learned by the Government as well.
The theme of incompetence and cronyism does not end there. In a Westminster Hall debate back in December, I joined many other MPs in highlighting the fact that the National Audit Office report on the Government’s procurement during the pandemic had found that contracts had been awarded without due diligence, with a lack of documentation, and no clear audit trail or transparency. Just a few weeks ago, the High Court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully by not publishing details on the contracts awarded within 30 days, including many awarded through the Government’s VIP lane. The judge ruled that the Government’s inaction breached a vital public function of transparency regarding how vast quantities of taxpayers’ money was spent. The passage of the Bill should not allow the Government to act without accountability and transparency. There are too many instances of the Government’s poor procurement policy representing poor value for money.
In conclusion, I wish to press the point that Ministers must be accountable and civil servants must not be scapegoated for the Government’s poor decision making. The legally binding protection of written ministerial directions ensure that they are not implicated in the Government’s incompetent decision making and cronyism. This is not unnecessary bureaucracy, as referred to by  the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); it is right for Parliament to be able to scrutinise them in a timely manner in the public interest.

Richard Thomson: I will be brief. The concerns of Scottish National party MPs over certain covid-related Government procurements are well known and on the record, and we will continue to hold the UK Government to account for them. Nevertheless, whether the new clause is viewed through that particular lens or not, the fact remains that taken on its own terms it would greatly improve scrutiny, oversight and accountability, without creating any disproportionate impact on the Government or the overall efficiency of the spending process. Trying to equate the improvement in process that would result with an attack on business, as we have heard today, is frankly nonsense. It smacks of desperation, and I am certain that that is exactly how it will be seen.
The SNP will be supporting this amendment. If the Government have any care at all for transparency on these matters, and for being able to demonstrate that there is proper stewardship of public funds, there is frankly no good reason for them not to support it as well.

Jesse Norman: As you will be aware, Mr Evans, clause 1 provides for an increase in capital for the Contingencies Fund. It raises the limit from the standard 2% to 12%, providing a sum of approximately £105 billion for the financial year 2021-22 only.
We are all agreed across the House on the central importance of accountability to Parliament, but it is the Government’s very firm view that new clause 1 is not needed in order to achieve accountability. It is important to say again that supply processes continue to be used in the usual way with expenditure still subject to parliamentary scrutiny and a vote. This Bill simply permits an advance on expenditure that will be included in the main or supply estimates.
Let me set out four points that make this quite clear. First, the Contingencies Fund is about ensuring cash flow, restricting it to urgent services in anticipation of parliamentary provision becoming available and temporary funds required for necessary working balances. It is not additional spending; it is simply a cash advance to be repaid. It does not in any way preclude the scrutiny by Parliament of additional provision sought by a Department through the supply estimates, nor does it preclude the Comptroller and Auditor General from expressing his view on the regularity of departmental expenditure.
Secondly, each and every departmental accounting officer remains fully accountable for expenditure; and, of course, that expenditure will be audited by the NAO in the usual way as part of the annual reports and accounts of each Department. Transparency arrangements for ministerial directions—where they are sought under the requirements of the doctrine of “Managing Public Money”—will also continue in the usual way. Accounting officers are already required to publish any direction that they receive as soon as possible, unless there is a broader public interest in keeping it confidential.
Thirdly, the House has seen throughout 2021 that Departments must notify Parliament by way of a ministerial statement agreed with the Treasury where a commitment will be or has been entered into in advance of supply. I would like to make it clear that the mandatory WMS wording agreed with Parliament and the NAO already distinguishes whether this advance is a new service, new expenditure or simply a cash requirement ahead of a supply estimate.
I remind hon. Members that the Contingencies Fund is not a tool—some hon. Members have made this point—that Ministers can choose to use; it is not discretionary. It is managed entirely by the Treasury, and the accounting officer must ensure that advances are given in line with strict rules agreed between Parliament, the NAO and the Treasury. These rules are set out clearly in the published estimates manual. Every Department makes an application outlining the urgency of their case and how they plan to meet the listed requirement. It is worth mentioning that the NAO also audits the Contingencies Fund accounts, and that includes a full list of advances.
Let me turn to a couple of the points raised by Members in the debate. I did ask for questions on the Bill, but the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) somehow found that difficult. She raised another irrelevant issue about public spending. She asked me about my own link. I assure her that I had nothing to do with the awarding of any contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) pointed out, this is true for Ministers across the Government, according to the NAO.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, made a speech, wonderfully—and I thank her for it—on the Bill. I am very grateful. She asked whether the Bill is rushed through. The answer to that question is no, it is not. It is important to do it, we think, before the beginning of the new financial year. The same Bill was put through in March last year, and so it is here. She asked about Treasury controls. We fully, strongly believe in them. She recommends Ghanaian principles of public finance, but I am not sure I can follow her in that direction.

James Murray: With the leave of the Committee, I will respond briefly to the debate and pick up on some contributions that hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made powerful remarks and drew our attention to how hollow the phrase of the former Prime Minister—that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—now rings, given how the current Government have behaved. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke from great experience about the weakness of Parliament in scrutinising Government spending. She set out how the claims of bureaucracy from Government Members are misplaced and that, in fact, new clause 1 is about transparency and accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) set out clearly the consequences of vast sums being given to companies with no track record of delivery, underscoring why this really matters to people’s lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made it clear that the Government should listen and learn from the events of the past year and regain  the trust of the public, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) highlighted the Government’s shameful record on transparency, value for money and, crucially, the outcome of what is actually delivered. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) made some critical points on scrutiny leading to better government. She spoke from great experience of why it is so vital that the reporting of written ministerial directions is taken into account so that they can take responsibility for their decisions.
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I was disappointed that he did not use the opportunity to refute or respond to any of the comments about the Public Accounts Committee’s report on Test and Trace. I noted that despite some Government Members having spoken for a second time today, they still did not find time to justify and explain how the spending on Test and Trace has been value for money. The Minister fundamentally failed to address the inadequacy of current scrutiny arrangements, given what has happened over the past year.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, our new clause aims to introduce a new standard of transparency. We believe that it is urgently needed after the Government’s approach over the last year. I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument. I welcome the SNP group’s support for new clause 1 and we will seek a Division on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That new clause 1 be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 267, Noes 360.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for  a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Nigel Evans: We will now suspend for three minutes for sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, and to allow the safe exit from the Chamber of those leaving and the safe arrival of those entering for the next debate.
Sitting suspended.

International Women’s Day

[Relevant document: Fifth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Unequal impact? Coronavirus and the gendered economic impact, HC 385.]

Maria Miller: I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
It is a privilege to lead this International Women’s Day debate on behalf of members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, who put forward the application. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its continued strong support for this debate as an annual event.
I want to start by sending my thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of Sarah Everard, who are going through such a painful time. Her abduction has sent shockwaves across the UK. Sarah did everything to avoid danger. Let us be very clear: women are not the problem here. For many women, this news story will bring back memories of threatening situations they found themselves in through no fault of their own, sexually harassed on the streets when walking home from meeting friends, receiving anonymous threats of physical violence on social media, or sexually assaulted in plain sight in rush hour on public transport on the way to work. Many choose not to talk about this and not to report it for fear of not being believed or taken seriously. But the research shows that these sorts of events are part of women’s everyday lives, and that is why what happened to Sarah Everard feels so very close to home.
The shocking findings of the report published yesterday by the APPG on United Nations women show that virtually all young women have experienced the threat of sexual violence in public spaces and, indeed, that three in four women of all ages have experienced sexual harassment. Although the raw facts may show that it is rare for a woman to be abducted, the experience of young women is that the fear of sexual harassment, or worse, is ever in their mind, whether on a night out at the pub or after threats to their physical safety on social media, while for the one in six women who will be stalked in their lifetime, the fear of attack is very real.
So rather than telling women not to worry, listen to our experience. Understand why so many women relentlessly campaigned in this Chamber for change to make women feel safer by stopping the harassment and threats of violence in the first place. We should not accept a culture of violence towards women, we should not be complicit in covering it up, and we need to give women effective mechanisms to report what happens in order to expose the scale of the problem, call it out publicly, and punish those who perpetrate this culture of fear.
Reflecting on the past 12 months women have gone through in terms of their response to the challenges presented by coronavirus, at home women have been prominent in delivering on the frontline of health and social care, with two women professors, Sarah Gilbert and Catherine Green, helping to pioneer a global solution to the pandemic. In the US, Kamala Harris has become the first woman to be elected Vice-President of the United States, shattering another glass ceiling in the political world. Even closer to home, you, Madam  Deputy Speaker, became the first woman ever to hold the role of Chairman of Ways and Means, bringing your infinite wit and wisdom to that important role.
While we acknowledge these significant milestones, the pandemic has brought existing inequalities into sharp focus too. Women have faced pressures in balancing work with home schooling and childcare. Domestic abuse cases have spiralled—up by 83%. When it comes to job losses, women have faced a heavy toll, with those aged 25 to 34 facing the highest unemployment rise. The Government’s mission of levelling up is very relevant to women. To mark International Women’s Day 2021, my message and hope is that a focus on levelling up for women is in place now more than ever before, both here in the UK and across the world.
We have record numbers of female MPs, yet still men outnumber women two to one in positions of power. A 50:50 Cabinet would help to ensure that women’s voices are heard where they need to be—right at the heart of Government. This week, as part of a whole host of International Women’s Day celebrations, we heard from the parliamentary archivist, Mari Takayanagi, about the remarkable contributions of early women MPs and the huge impact they had on law-making—how they spoke out 100 years ago in this place about the most sensitive of crimes against women, like FGM. These stories of courage can be seen in the work of women elected to this House today—women like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), whose courage means that we have world-leading domestic abuse legislation and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, a blueprint for others across the world.
We need more women aspiring to become Members of Parliament, so I warmly welcome the Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry looking at the actions taken on gender equality in the House of Commons. I hope that we can conduct a second gender-sensitive audit as soon as possible, with a body identified as being responsible for putting its recommendations into practice.
Above all, we need 2021 to be the year that we finally grasp the nettle of online abuse, which so badly affects women, particularly those in public life. We need the forthcoming online harms Bill to be more than a set of regulatory guidelines. We need laws that make it clear that online abuse is a crime, particularly with regard to posting intimate images online without consent. A safer, more respectful environment online will also lead to a kinder politics; I really believe that. In the meantime, let us stand up to those who gratuitously abuse women online—particularly women MPs and journalists—to help make sure that more women choose to stand for election and be leaders in our media too.
Women face barriers here in Westminster, but the same is still true of other sectors—in healthcare, for instance, where women account for more than three quarters of the workforce yet fewer than half have leadership positions. An out-of-date workplace with a presenteeism culture does little to support women, particularly when they have had children, so it was helpful to see the Birmingham Business School conduct research through the pandemic to show that flexible working can improve productivity. We need as a nation to adopt flexible working as standard, as part of levelling up for women and delivering a truly modern British workplace shaped around the whole workforce. We  need to look closely at what Parliament should retain from the last 12 months of changed ways of working, so that we can play our part in modernising our workplace too.
In levelling up, we need to provide pregnant women and new mothers with better protections to stop them being pushed out of work simply for being pregnant. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that one in four pregnant women felt discriminated against in the last year. Outlawing pregnant women from being made redundant, as Germany has done, would help to stop so many women falling out of the labour market into low-paid work when they have children.
In this mission of levelling up for women, our voice on the global stage will be just as important. The Prime Minister has been a long-time advocate for girls’ education as central to levelling up for women across the globe. As the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office considers its new role, including championing international development through open societies, we need to continue to take forward this principled commitment to girls’ education, alongside the UK’s internationally acknowledged role in outlawing the other inequalities and abuses that women face—for example, abuse in conflict zones, forced marriage and the lack of a host of other basic human rights.
With the UK leading the G7 this year, there is a truly unique opportunity for our country to show leadership on the global stage in promoting gender equality. The UK Government ratifying the International Labour Organisation convention on violence and harassment—the first international labour instrument that recognises the right of everybody to work free from violence and harassment—would be an act of leadership and an appropriate start. Let us celebrate an astonishing year for women and call for a commitment to level up for women across the UK and across the globe, for a fairer society for everybody.

Eleanor Laing: It will not surprise Members to know that well over 60 people wish to participate in the debate, and therefore I am afraid that we will have to start and remain with a time limit of just three minutes.

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing the debate, and I agree with every single word that she said in her excellent speech.
This International Women’s Day debate comes in the shadow of the menace of male violence against women. I am sure we all feel the same as the Home Secretary, who said that she is “deeply saddened” by the developments in the Sarah Everard investigation, and we all hope against hope that we will not hear the news that we all dread. But at the same time as the sadness, there is real anger among women at the threat that they face on a daily basis. That is not to spread alarm; it is to spell out the reality.
Here we are, in the 21st century, in a country where women and men expect to be equal, but we are not. Women, particularly young women, are terrified of the threat of male violence on the streets—men who try to get them to get in their car, who try to get their number, who follow them, who film them, who will not take no  for an answer. Every young woman, every day, walks under this threat, so they adopt myriad strategies just to get home from work in the dark—choosing the busiest route, even if it is longer; keeping their keys in their hand; trying to go with someone rather than alone; getting a friend or their partner to map their location on a phone app; phoning on the way home so that they know they are expected.
Women will find no reassurance at all in the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s statement that it is
“incredibly rare for a woman to be abducted from our streets.”
Women know that abduction and murder is just the worst end of a spectrum of everyday male threat to women. When the police advise women not to go out at night on their own, women ask why they have to be subjected to an informal curfew. It is not women who are the problem here; it is men.
The criminal justice system fails women and lets men off the hook. Whether it is rape or domestic homicide, women are judged and blamed—“Why was she on a dating app?” “Why was she out late at night?” “Why had she been drinking?” “What are those flirty messages on her phone?”—and men find excuses, raking up her previous sexual history in court to try to tarnish her character and prejudice the jury. Let us hear no more false reassurances; let us have action.
Next Monday, we will be debating in this House the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. That is the chance for the Government to banish the culture of male excuses from the criminal justice system and, instead of blaming women, start protecting them.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Mother of the House for her very powerful speech, as ever. We now go to the Chairman of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.

Caroline Nokes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon.  and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who does so much in this place to champion women.
Last year in this debate, we were not learning how to run a Parliament remotely, and none of us had ever considered being able to contribute to a debate while admiring the cobwebs on our own light fittings. In the spirit of celebration, I am going to think of uplifting things to start with, such as the sheer fact that this centuries-old institution has learned to flex and change—to adapt to Zoom and remote voting.
I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for having driven that agenda forward. We have seen more women contributing more often in Commons debates—more female voices in our Chamber, whether physically present or not—and that I celebrate. We have seen stunning contributions and campaigns from women right across the House and across Parliament, making desperately needed amendments and improvements to the Domestic Abuse Bill. We have seen women outside Parliament, such as Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce determinedly, making sure that we got that roll-out.
We have heard from the Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), about her support for the normalisation of flexible working. That could mean so much to women, and I look forward to an employment Bill coming forward that champions that.
But it is impossible for me to turn my contribution today into an unabashed celebration. It is not going brilliantly for all women—not here, not anywhere. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will speak later, and I know that she will have had to update that hideous, depressing list she is going to read out to add the name of Sarah Everard, so tragically killed while just walking home. Overnight, we saw an outpouring of stories from women about keys, headphones, clothes and sticking to lit streets. We all know the reality is you will probably not be attacked by a stranger, but the fear is there and the fear is real.
On this International Women’s Day, let us champion all women—gay women, who do not need conversion therapy; trans women, who want to be treated with respect and fairness. Remember, they are the ones most likely to suffer domestic abuse.
I wish to reference the work of the Women and Equalities Committee and its report on the gendered economic impact of covid. That was reinforced yesterday by the publication from the Office for National Statistics confirming that women have indeed suffered a greater economic impact from the pandemic—more likely to be furloughed than their male colleagues; more likely to be employed on a part-time contract and not entitled to statutory sick pay; less confident that they will not be made redundant.
We no longer have to look at health policy in the round because of the announcement this week of the women’s health strategy and the call for evidence, but apparently we still have to look at economic policy in the round and cannot accept data from the ONS that women have been harder hit economically. We will not get a female employment strategy, and I do not celebrate that.

Mhairi Black: I echo the comments made previously about the horrific news we are hearing about Sarah Everard. My thoughts go out to her and her friends and family.
Celebrating women for one day alone is not enough. Women’s issues are not challenges on the periphery that can be addressed in isolation, and the problems that women face are firmly embedded in our everyday politics, systems and lives. Year after year, the overall experience of women largely remains the same, and women are still more likely to experience inequality, poverty and abuse.
As with all forms of oppression, understanding how women are held back requires an ability to reassess everything as we know it, but through a different lens. For example, women make up the majority of part-time employment, and when we create an economy in which such work is often low paid and insecure, is it a surprise when women disproportionately suffer the consequences of that? When we have a Budget that will not implement  a real living wage, we know that the consequences of that will disproportionately affect women. When we have a stigmatising social security system that includes things such as the rape clause, are we helping women?
I do not want to sound ungrateful for the progress we have made. Organisations such as Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid serve to educate me just as they inspire me, but as policymakers we must reflect on whether we are giving such organisations the support they need, and treating their opinions with the value they deserve. The inequality, harassment and poverty that women disproportionately experience does not come about by nature; it is enabled by our institutions and culture.
Human beings are varied and complex, and intersectional feminism provides a greater level of clarity as to how inequality can impact different people. For example, the experiences of a woman with a disability are likely to vary from the specific experiences of a woman of colour. Only by taking time to look through those additional lenses can we begin to unpick what enables that inequality, and learn how we can better support each other as women. Rather than trying awkwardly to cram women into institutions that undervalue them, and structures that were built long ago for men and by men, we must reimagine and reorganise those very structures, but this time build them with women, especially marginalised women, at the heart of everything we do.

Karen Bradley: I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is great to see the Chairman of Ways and Means—a woman—in the Chair, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this important debate. When I left this morning, I told my husband that I was speaking in an International Women’s Day debate. He said, “But that was on Monday”, and I said, “Unfortunately we didn’t get time to debate it on Monday,” so I am pleased we are debating it today.
Time is short, so I will touch on just two issues. First is the UK’s leadership and role in combating the abuse of women globally. I was a Home Office Minister with responsibility for preventing abuse, exploitation and crime, and I saw some of the most grotesque and horrific crimes that can be inflicted. All too often they were inflicted on women. Breast ironing, female genital mutilation, forced marriage—things that are done to and forced on women around the world; things that should never happen to any woman.
The UK has had global leadership in this area, and I am enormously worried, given the mood music coming from the Government around our commitment to overseas aid, that we are not committed to those areas in the way that once we were. It is the UK’s leadership that has meant that we have seen reductions in these horrific crimes.
The UK’s leadership has also led to the focus on 12 years’ education for girls, which the Prime Minister championed when he was Foreign Secretary. The UK has led on modern slavery, which affects men and women, but predominantly women. Let us be clear: our overseas aid stopped Ebola becoming a pandemic. Those are real achievements that our aid budget has helped to deliver and I am desperately worried that we may see that as a nice-to-have rather than an essential. I call on  the Government to ensure that we have a debate on the matter and a vote, so that parliamentarians can have a say on that manifesto commitment.
I want quickly to consider Parliament and this place. In my role as Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. It has been fantastic to see the way in which Parliament has adapted. We did not want to be in this situation in Parliament. We did not want to sit 2 metres apart, but we have to. We have adapted and women have benefited. Evidence to the Committee shows that more women have used virtual participation than men. More women have been able to enjoy the benefits of perhaps an even more family-friendly House. We are following the road map and are coming to the point where we end lockdown. We should look carefully at the things we have done in the past 12 months and consider what would work for the future.

Christina Rees: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a great privilege to be the first female MP for Neath. I would not be here if it were not for the first female general secretary of Welsh Labour, Baroness Anita Gale of Blaenrhondda, who fought for all-women shortlists. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) succeeded Baroness Gale and the current general secretary is Louise Magee—three inspirational female leaders.
Gwenda Thomas, the first female Senedd Member for Neath, is a staunch advocate for equal opportunities. Margaret Coleman, widow of former Neath MP Donald Coleman, is the busiest octogenarian in Neath. Renowned soprano Katherine Jenkins, famous actress and singer Siân Phillips and singer Bonnie Tyler are from Neath.
During the 1984 miners’ strike, women were at the front of picket lines, organised valley support groups, and kept spirits up across south Wales. “Pride” wasfilmed in Onllwyn Miners’ Welfare Hall, called the “Palace of Culture” by my dear friend Hywel Francis. Dove Workshop was formed during the strike, by women for women. Its founders were Hefina Headon, Mair Francis and Lesley Smith.Dove Workshop retrained women to gain qualifications and is the birthplace of the Community University of the Valleys.
Women are pioneers in sport.As a former Welsh squash international with over 100 caps, and the only female Welsh squash national coach,I was awarded the Sport Wales Female Coach of the Year in 2008 for my contribution to squash. I am proud of our current Welsh squash senior internationals. Tesni Evans is ranked world No. 9, is a Commonwealth bronze medallist and British Champion two years running.Emily Whitlock is a former world No. 12.Ellie Breach, aged 15, and her sister Millie, aged 13,from Neath are both age-group Welsh internationals.Squash Wales held an International Women’s Day virtual session with Tesni, and more than 40 women across Wales joined in. I will continue to fight for squash to become an Olympic sport.
My friend Bethan Howell, captain of Seven Sisters RFC Ladies, a Welsh international and Ospreys player, is a fighter for women’s equality, on and off the field. I am proud to be patron of Seven Sisters RFC Ladies.
As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I will miss my dear friend Karen Wilkie, who is retiring as deputy general secretary of the Co-operative party in June, after 26 years of loyal service.
I thank my daughter Angharad from the bottom of my heart forher love and support.Angharad is my world.

Andrea Leadsom: Today, I feel pretty angry and sad: angry that women walking home in the dark have to be scared of the person walking closely behind them, and sad because for far too many women, even getting home safely does not mean they are safe from harm. So I say to all colleagues right across the House: let us never allow party politics get in the way of protecting women and girls. I want to use my short time today to raise an issue that would help women, and that is making flexible work standard.
In 1995, I was working for Barclays. At the age of 32, and five months pregnant with my first child, I was promoted to senior executive. Of 240 senior execs, only eight were women. I was told that taking on this massive new job would mean coming back quickly from maternity leave, and I naively leapt at the chance. Three months after Fred was born, I had fallen in love with him, but he did not sleep much and I was under huge pressure from my male boss to go back to work. I will not dwell on it, but after post-natal depression and 18 months holding down the job while seeking to go part time, and two miscarriages later, I took legal advice. The head of the UK bank had said:
“We have managed without female directors until now. We certainly do not need part-time ones.”
I was advised to sue for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination, but blissfully for me, I was now pregnant with Harry, and this precious pregnancy was not worth the stress of a court case so I took voluntary redundancy. The reason that I could have sued was that, even then, employers were not allowed to refuse to consider part-time work, and 25 years on, that is still the case, but the 21st century demands change.

Maria Miller: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this is one of the many reasons why we should protect pregnant women from being made redundant, as in the case that she is talking about?

Andrea Leadsom: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with everything she said in her remarks.
During my time in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a top priority was to make the UK the best place in the world to work, by encouraging flexible working as standard, transparency of employment terms and regular working hours. I planned to bring this forward in the employment rights Bill, so that applicants could propose their own working day as opposed to the employer setting the terms. Whether someone works in a supermarket or behind a desk, they should have the right to request a working pattern that suits them without negative consequences. Of course, employees can already request flexible working, but I have found that many fear to do so because of repercussions for their job security.
Flexible as standard can also be a huge advantage for employers. If job ads do not specify fixed working arrangements, applications will come from a much wider and more diverse pool of candidates. Employers must of course be able to refuse unrealistic offers, but enabling flexible as standard will, in my view, improved quality of life as well as productivity and diversity in the workplace. We know that women provide the majority of part-time workers and also the principal caring roles, so capturing all their talents will benefit both our economy and our society. So, as we look to build back better, let us put flexible work as standard at the heart of our recovery.

Angela Crawley: As always, it is a pleasure to speak in the International Women’s Day debate. International Women’s Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on the contribution that women make, here and around the globe, and to look at how far we have come in the fight for equality and the distance we yet have to travel. Of course, this debate is taking place at a time like no other. The past 12 months have been incredibly difficult for all of us. Covid has brought disruption and worry, and to some it has brought heartbreak. It has also exacerbated the inequalities that were already present, and the means to challenge these things has been hampered by the outbreak of the pandemic. Sadly, this has exacerbated the inequality between men and women.
Only 9% of working-class women in the UK can work at home. The sectors that are most severely affected are dominated by women, including hospitality, education and healthcare. With schools and nurseries only partially open, it is women who are taking on most of the unpaid care, often reducing their hours or giving up their employment to look after children. It is women who are more likely to care for their older or disabled relatives and neighbours, and sadly, it is also women who will be trapped in their homes self-isolating with an abusive partner. Despite this, women and girls in the UK have been largely invisible from the debate and excluded from decision making.
Hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ pounds have been spent without considering the specific challenges that women are facing. For example, in January the LSE reported that 71% of women in the UK were in some form of employment, but three months later that figure had dropped by 5%. If they have remained in employment, women have seen their work volumes increase and have also experienced job loss. Furlough was impacting 2.3 million women in January this year. Although the extension is welcome, there should not be a cliff edge to that support. The uplift to universal credit, worth £1,040 a year to claimants, is due to be axed later this year. That must not happen at all, at any time.
Women have been adversely impacted and are the worst affected in this pandemic. There have been a few silver linings to the pandemic, and the opportunity for women to work from home and have flexible working is more important than ever. I call on the Government to take into consideration the findings of the Women and Equalities Committee in this regard.
Lastly, how often have we said to a friend on the way home, “Be safe—text me when you get home”? The fear alone should tell us we have a problem.

Eleanor Laing: We now go to the Father of the House, who, I recollect, has taken part in this International Women’s Day debate on every occasion I have observed over the last 25 years—long before it was fashionable.

Peter Bottomley: That is probably because my mother thought she would have been a better MP than I have been, and my wife, daughters and granddaughters are probably certain that they could be, too.
I want to recognise that there has been progress, but I also want to join the right hon. and hon. Ladies—colleagues—who have spoken so far. We will listen in silence to the next speaker, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), giving the roll call of those who been killed by men.
I echo the remarks that have been and will be made about the fact that cuts in our target for UN overseas aid will predominantly hit women—the women whom I have been dedicated to since I was a trustee of Christian Aid, and since I served on the Select Committee on overseas aid in the 1970s. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to say that the Government should stick to the promise that was proudly in the Conservative manifesto at the last election.
Domestically, it is not a question of, “Most men behave well most of the time, and no one can claim to be perfect,” or a question of, “Why are most women in a worse position?” The fact is that we all need to change. I hope that we can get to the stage where I do not have to carry a whistle on my keyring, and neither do my daughters and granddaughters.
People need to feel safe at work, when travelling and in their domestic circumstances. For that to happen, we need to find a way to ensure that people have the patience and courage to challenge behaviours in themselves and others that result in people feeling threatened and suffering violence, whether physical, mental or economic. I would like people to be able to be people. I recognise that we may be men, we may be women, we may be female, we may be male, we may be mixed, we may have other orientations or we may feel differently. That is not the point; the point is that we should be safe and secure, and we should be able to talk. For that, we need to encourage each other.
I hope that the elements of this debate will be reported in the newspapers, along with practical suggestions about what we can see in ourselves and around us. As Dr Richard Stone—one of the assessors, along with Sir William Macpherson, on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry—said in relation to housing, too often we ask the victims to put things right. He said that it is normally white, middle-class men in full-time jobs who have the power. It is our responsibility to join with others to make life better. Whatever our age, stage, race, background or religion, people need to be safe, and at the moment women do not feel safe. I am glad to have contributed, and I hope to learn from what I will hear in a moment.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Father of the House for his contribution, for his constant support in favour of this debate taking place here in this Chamber—for which we have had to fight over the years—and for his constant support also for the matters discussed here.
I am now going to temporarily suspend the time limit, because I appreciate that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is going to read a list of names. Members will know that the reading of lists is prohibited in this Chamber, but Mr Speaker has given special dispensation to the hon. Lady, as has happened in previous years, to read this particular very sensitive and very important list.

Jess Phillips: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all in the Speaker’s Office for their consideration. It shows that Parliament is very committed to this issue.
In this place, we count what we care about—we count the vaccines done; we count the number of people on benefits. We rule or oppose based on a count, and we obsessively track that data. We love to count data about our own popularity. However, we do not currently count dead women. No Government study is done into the patterns every year of the data on victims of domestic abuse who are killed, die by suicide or die suddenly. Dead women is a thing we have all just accepted as part of our daily lives. Dead women are just one of those things.
Killed women are not vanishingly rare; killed women are common. Dead women do count, and thanks to the brilliant work of Karen Ingala Smith and the Counting Dead Women project, and the academics and charities working on the femicide census, these women’s lives and the scale of male violence against women can be known.
Since last year on this day, these are the women killed in the UK where a man has been convicted or charged as the primary perpetrator in the case: Vanita Nowell; Tracey Kidd; Nelly Moustafa; Zahida Bi; Josephine Kaye; Shadika Mohsin Patel; Maureen Kidd; Wendy Morse; Nageeba Alariqy; Elsie Smith; Kelly Stewart; Gwendoline Bound; Ruth Williams; Victoria Woodhall; Kelly Fitzgibbons, who was killed alongside her two daughters; Caroline Walker; Katie Walker; Zobaidah Salangy; Betty Dobbin; Sonia Calvi; Maryan Ismail; Daniela Espirito Santo; Ruth Brown, Denise Keane-Barnett-Simmons; Jadwiga Szczygielska; Emma Jane McParland; Louise Aitchison; Silke Hartshorne-Jones; Hyacinth Morris; Louise Smith; Claire Parry; Aya Hachem; Melissa Belshaw; Yvonne Lawson McCann; Lyndsey Alcock; Aneta Zdun; Nikoleta Zdun; Mandy Houghton; Amy-Leanne Stringfellow; Bibaa Henry; Nicole Smallman; Dawn Bennett; Gemma Marjoram; Karolina Zinkeviciene; Rosemary Hill; Jackie Hoadley; Khloemae Loy; Kerry Woolley; Shelly Clark; Bernadette Walker; Stella Frew; Dawn Fletcher; Deborah Jones; Patrycja Wyrebek; Therasia Gordon; Esther Egbon; Susan Baird; Balvinder Gahir; Lynda Cooper; Lorraine Cox; Suzanne Winnister;  Maria Howarth; Abida Karim; Saman Mir Sacharvi; Vian Mangrio; Poorna Kaameshwari Sivaraj, who was killed alongside her three-year-old son; Louise Rump;  Julie Williams; Rhonda Humphreys; Nicole McGregor; Angela Webber; Carole Wright; Sarah Smith; Ildiko  Bettison; Kimberley Deakin; Marie Gladders; Paula Leather; Caroline Kayll; Lauren Mae Bloomer; Hansa Patel; Helen Bannister; Marta Vento; Andreia Rodriguez Guilherme; Joanna Borucka; Azaria Williams; Catherine Granger; Eileen Dean; Sue Addis; Carol Hart; Jacqueline Price; Mary Wells; Tiprat Argatu; Christie Frewin; Souad Bellaha; Ann Turner; N’Taya Elliott-Cleverley; Rose Marie Tinton; Ranjit Gill; Helen Joy; Emma Robertson; Nicole Anderson; Linda Maggs; Carol Smith; Sophie Moss; Christina Rowe; Susan Hannaby; Michelle Lizanec; Wieslawa Mierzejewska; Judith Rhead; Anna Ovsyannikova; Tina Eyre; Katie Simpson; Bennylyn Burke and her two-year-old daughter; Samantha Heap; Geetika Goyal; Imogen Bohajczuk; and Wenjing Xu.
There has been much debate over what I would say at the end of the list. Her name rings out across all our media—we have all prayed that the name of Sarah Everard would never be on any list. Let us pray every day and work every day to make sure that nobody’s name ends up on this list again.

Lia Nici: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who—well, there are no words. There are no words at all.
I want to talk about the influence of women in my life. I can honestly say that in my life, when I have chosen parts of my career that have been male-dominated, I have had nothing but support from the male colleagues, friends and family members in my life. I would not be here today if it was not for their wholehearted support. But we need to remember that we do not have that support from every man in society. We have come a long way in the UK, but we still have a long way to go. That is true not only in this country but around the world.
I want to reflect today on the commemoration of Beatrice Shilling, the now renowned engineer who was awarded a gold star for doing a lap around Brooklands at more than 100 mph. That reminded me of my grandmother who was, in the 1930s and throughout the second world war, a military dispatch rider on a motorcycle. She travelled the length and breadth of the country on her own. When I started to drive as a young woman, she would ask me where I had been, but she could never understand where I had been if I talked about motorways. I had to talk to her in terms of A roads and B roads, because that is how she navigated the country. Often, in blackouts, she had to navigate the country totally in the dark.
I would also like to pay tribute to my mother, who in the late 1950s became a police officer. There were so few women police officers in those days that her police number was 5. She was seen as a great talent and became a detective, but to go into the criminal investigation department in those days officers had to have special dispensation to become a female detective if they were under the age of 21.
Without my grandmother’s and mother’s stories—without them recollecting what they had done—and without their advice about what I could do by being fearless, going out there and doing the job that I wanted to do, working with both male and female colleagues and friends to put something back into society, I would not be where I am today.
I pay tribute to the working women and our male colleagues who continue to support the great moves forward. I am so proud to be here, and thank you all very much.

Kirsty Blackman: It is 2021—it is more than 100 years since women got the vote and more than 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970. We have come such a long way, and although we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us and fought for equality, we still have such a distance to go.
My children are growing up in a deeply unequal world with deeply unequal experiences. They are pigeonholed and they are stereotyped. Even now, in 2021, little girls are told to be kind, to be nice and to smile, while little boys are told to be brave, to be fast and to be strong. How often have we picked up a toy teddy beer, looked at it and said “he”—used the word “he” to describe it—unless it has a pink bow? In all of those cases, we will say “he” for those things. That is because this is drummed into us, and this is drummed into our society works.
We must consider this—we must look at stereotypes—and we must always consider intersectionality: we must check our own privilege. Younger women, ethnic minority women, bisexual women, trans women and disabled women are more likely to be domestically abused. Terry Pratchett wrote:
“Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.”
But I also think it begins when we remove anyone’s agency or we remove their right to make their own choices. Before we embark on criticising a focus that someone has, we should all check our own actions and we should check our own privilege. We have the ability to fight on behalf of others, but we have that ability because we have our own agency and we have our own rights to make choices. Before we can fight for anyone else, we need to have a measure of privilege that gives us that those options and the energy to do so.
The social security system and this UK Government have done what they can to remove that agency and to remove those choices. We can see that by the number of women who have had abortions during the course of this pandemic and have said that the two-child policy and the rape clause have created the financial situation that has forced them into this position. That is horrendous. In Scotland, we are putting dignity and respect at the heart of our social security system. Instead of drowning out the voices of sidelined minority groups with our own concerns, we should be hearing their voices, we should be listening to their voices and we should be amplifying their voices.
Before #MeToo women were experiencing sexual harassment, before George Floyd BAME people were being murdered and before Sarah Everard’s murder women were scared to walk home alone. We should not be waiting until somebody is murdered before taking their voices seriously.

Nusrat Ghani: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate, and I agreed with  every word she said. As for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I just hope that, when she is on her feet next year, she will be speaking for a much shorter period of time and there are not so many women killed at the hands of man. As for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to send her a virtual hug for her brave speech.
It is with a heavy heart that we are recognising International Women’s Day today, and the mood of the House has once again been dictated by the actions of men, not by the achievements of women. That is the reality of our day-to-day lives. It is the actions of men that dictate our lives and our choices, and for the next few minutes I want—I choose—to celebrate some phenomenal women in my constituency, particularly Helen Taylor-Thompson.
Helen Taylor-Thompson lived in the village of Nutley and, unfortunately, I had to attend her funeral last year. When Helen was around, she was wonderful in providing me with cups of tea and bits of cake. The reason why she is so important is that, at the age of 19, she signed the Official Secrets Act and began working for the Special Operations Executive, but she did not stop there. Later on, she raised over £3 million and set up the UK’s first hospice caring for people with AIDS-related illnesses. It was the hospice where the late Princess of Wales hugged or shook hands with a Mildmay patient, helping to break the taboo and stigma around HIV and AIDS. I wonder whether, if Helen Taylor-Thompson had been a man, all us would know her name, but she was a woman, and I want to put her name on record today.
When we celebrate the phenomenal vaccination programme, I hope that we do not whitewash the roles of women. I want women like those in my constituency to be recognised, including Charlotte Luck, the practice manager of the Meads medical centre, for having done so much work in ensuring vaccines are rolled out efficiently, and Dr Susie Padgham, a GP based at Saxonbury House surgery in Crowborough, who at one point was provided with over 1,000 extra vaccines and was able to get patients vaccinated in a short period of time. I hope that their stories are heard too.
I can speak about the progress of women and the fear and prejudice that we face, but I want to talk about the plight of Uyghur women, who are living the nightmare of “The Handmaid’s Tale”, and in particular the brave woman Rahima Mahmut, who is a Uyghur survivor. We should carry her on our shoulders as she fights for the plight of women—women who are forced into being sterilised or having abortions and who have their children removed, all because they are Uyghur and based in Xinjiang. I hope that we can do much more within our power to support them.
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, but it would be far more powerful if we had more than just three minutes to talk about the phenomenal progress that women have made and the work that we have to do.

Wendy Chamberlain: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing the debate. International Women’s Day is supposed to be a celebration, but even before the last 24 hours—given, for example, the progress of the  Scottish Parliament’s inquiries into the handling of harassment complaints and, more generally, the notably more negative impact of the pandemic on women across so many areas of their lives—it has not really felt like something worth celebrating.
Mr Speaker reminded us earlier today that it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the live investigation in relation to the tragic disappearance of Sarah Everard. I cannot help but reflect that, of course, it is not all men; but particularly where men in public positions of trust are guilty of committing acts of violence against women, it could be any man, and women feel compelled to act accordingly. I retweeted a tweet expressing that sentiment last night, and my 16-year-old daughter liked it. She never likes my tweets. The fact that she chose to like that one makes me incredibly sad.
I also reflect on my own time in the police service. I was a trained sexual offences officer. I recall that early in the 2000s, my force ran a bus advert in Edinburgh advising women to think about what they drank and who they were with when socialising—basically a plan to prevent sexual assault. In my early 20s, as I was then, I probably thought that that was reasonable. It shows how conditioned we all are.
As part of my sexual offences role, I was responsible for taking the victim’s statement and then attending any medical examination. Securing evidence and productions and maintaining a chain of evidence is crucial, but I also witnessed the impact of that initial investigation on the women involved. Time is a factor—the length of time for a sexual offences officer to travel to wherever the assault was taking place, to take a statement, to travel to the place where the medical exam would happen and for the exam itself, with women not being able to wash or change in that time, in order to preserve evidence. It is an incredibly invasive process. No matter how empathetic the investigating officer is—and I like to think that I always was—they are not your friend; they are not your family member. The real tragedy is that, a lot of the time, all that comes to absolutely nothing. And of course, that is just in the cases of those women who feel able to contact the police and disclose in the first place.
So how do we choose to challenge? The challenge to the Government is: pass the Domestic Abuse Bill, which has been in the offing for four years; legislate to make misogyny a hate crime; and make sure that those occupying positions of trust are people we really can trust. Men need to step up. They need to be active allies. International Women’s Day is just as much about my 13-year-old son as it is about my 16 year-old daughter.
The final challenge is to ourselves. We need to do much more to ensure that when we talk about women and about discrimination and violence, we are inclusive. Wenjing Lin, 16, died on Friday at her family’s takeaway restaurant in Wales. The man accused of her murder appeared in court this morning. At the root of much of our debate around single-sex spaces is the fear of sexual violence perpetrated by men. Changing men’s behaviour changes that debate, and on International Women’s Day, that is a challenge that faces us all.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for organising the debate. It is a privilege   to take part in it. I am the representative man who is here to take the punishment and the blame, and I do that—I do not shirk from that responsibility—because, despite everything that has been achieved for women’s rights, this debate proves that this is not a job that has been done; it is still very much a job to do. I think of things that have changed in my lifetime, such as the right for a woman to claim she has been raped by her husband, and, in retrospect, it is astonishing that they were allowed to persist in the modern age.
The main point I want to make is about the male blindness that still persists, which can so easily distort decisions. We need a political settlement in which it is impossible for decisions to be made that fail to recognise that, while men and women are equal, we have very different life experiences, which means that we need more women in the room when decisions are being formed. Look at how disadvantaged women have been in this covid crisis. How much do we think the Government have been able to recognise that?
If we want more women Ministers, I say to my colleagues on the Government Benches that we need more women MPs. I was tasked by David Cameron, when he first became leader, to increase the number of women candidates who could win Conservative seats. Up until 2010, only 9% of those on the Conservative Benches were women. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was first elected to this House, she was one of only 13 women Conservative Members. At that same time, the Labour party had 101. Today, we still only have 25%. I am very proud of that rapid improvement, but it is not enough. Can I just point out to my male colleagues that half the population are women?
I applaud the Prime Minister’s November statement that we should have a 50:50 Parliament, but how are we going to get there? Who stands in the way? It is the Conservative party, because we are not making this happen. Is the only way by legislation? I hope not, but we men have to understand why so few women come forward, why so many women MPs feel hounded and belittled by our political and social media culture, and why most women tend to have shorter political careers than men. I urge my male colleagues to join the Prime Minister in this ambition. This is not just a women’s issue. We men have to help to make this happen if we believe in it, or else the men are still the problem.

Rosie Duffield: Our International Women’s Day debates are usually a chance for us to celebrate our achievements, our pioneers, our trailblazers—those fearless glass ceiling smashers. We sigh and roll our eyes in frustration about how much further we still have to go. We remember that in contrast to the 5,000 or so men who have sat here, still only 520 women ever have. But then we buck ourselves up, rally other women, encourage them, ask them to stand, cheer those who persist, be positive and push ourselves even further, looking forward still to the changes that are surely only just around the next corner. But not today. Today is for Sarah. I wish we could all tell her just how angry we all feel. I wish she could see how much she has touched our lives and that we continue to keep her in our prayers.
The women here know that this is the day we hear my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out that list. We bring tissues.  We prepare ourselves mentally as well as we can to hear the names of all the women killed by men since she last read us that horrific list. We will ourselves not to cry in this place, but it is almost impossible not to be overcome as those names echo around the Chamber: ordinary and extraordinary women, mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, colleagues, best friends, neighbours—all loved, all the centre of someone’s world.
We know the statistics all too well. We know that every single day of every single week—pandemic or not—women are murdered by men. A very quick and basic search on a phone will reveal headlines such as “Three Women a Week Killed by Domestic Violence During Lockdown,” “Domestic Abuse Killings More Than Double Amid Covid-19 Lockdown,” and “Calls to Women’s Helplines Soar During Lockdown.” It goes on and on and on.
The outpouring of collective rage over the last 24 hours shows that women are tired. We are tired of having to pre-empt possible violence. We are tired of having to risk-assess every ordinary everyday action every hour of every day of our lives. We are tired of having to explain and justify every simple choice we make, every opinion we hold, every aspect of our appearance. We are sick of our voices going unheard, our calls for action being dismissed and delayed; sick of rules being changed to exclude us even in the oldest and seemingly most noble of our long-established institutions. Sarah Everard has reignited a fire within us, much like George Floyd did. Enough is enough. We must take a long hard look at society, at social media, at misogyny, at violence, at ourselves. Let us hope that next year’s list is virtually non-existent.
It is really painful to see the revelations that brave women are making individually on platforms such as Twitter. Every woman I know will have a similar story. If a man is reading some of those stories and is moved, shocked or upset by them, I promise them that the women in their life will all have lived some of those experiences themselves. Some of those experiences just need to be listened to.

Laura Trott: It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this important debate.
As the first female Member for Sevenoaks and Swanley, I was going to use my time today to talk about women in the covid recovery and the need for flexibility in the workplace. I strongly support all that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) had to say, but I want to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) in talking about the heart-breaking case that we have seen and the developments in the past 24 hours.
What we have seen online is an outpouring of grief and of people’s stories about the harassment and violence to which they have been subject over a number of years. These terrors that we experience as we walk down the street, looking over our shoulder, clutching our keys because we are nervous that someone will come up to us, but hoping desperately that we will never have to use them are, sadly, universal experiences.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said yesterday that such cases are rare. Yes, thankfully, it is rare that women are abducted in this country, but the roll call from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) is devastating. Incidents of women being harassed are nowhere near rare enough. A recent report from UN Women UK shows that almost all women—almost all women—have been sexually harassed. We must do more to address that.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has arrived in the House. I am pleased that it proposes to extend the minimum term for sexual and violent offenders and the power to end automatic early release. The Government should consider ending the standard determinant sentences for rape so that the Parole Board is always involved before these perpetrators are let out into the public.
The Domestic Abuse Bill, thankfully, is progressing well through Parliament and will create a legal definition of domestic abuse to provide clarity that domestic abuse can be financial, verbal and emotional as well as physical and sexual. Critically, it is about patterns of abuse over time. More needs to be done. We have seen from the outpouring of grief, upset, worry and concern that this exhausting pattern needs to end, and I hope that the violence against women and girls strategy, which is forthcoming later this year, will look at what more we can do on police harassment and on the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting cases. Women have a right to feel safe and it is about time that we made that a reality.

Dawn Butler: I congratulate the right hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate.
Every 16 minutes, a woman or a girl is abused. Every three days, a woman is killed by a man. We heard the list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). We must get to the root of this crisis. Inequality in society is fuelling the killing of women. The bullying and silencing of women’s voices contributes to the abuse that women receive. If a man was killed every three days, there would be investigations at every level of society. Unfortunately, though, at every level of society, a man still holds the power—whether it be economically, politically, in the media or the judicial system. One woman is killed every three days, but let us ask ourselves this: what are we really doing about it.
It is time for all those with power to stop being bystanders in this pandemic and get involved. Just yesterday, we read about Sarah Everard who it seems has been sadly killed. The suspect is a policeman who roamed the corridors of Parliament. I have made a freedom of information request to establish how many police officers—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I must caution the hon. Lady to be very careful about what she says, please. I will not say any more than that. Perhaps she could go on to the next part of her speech.

Dawn Butler: I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have made a freedom of information request to establish how many police officers have been investigated for domestic violence. Recognised journalist Alexandra  Heal won a Paul Foot prize for uncovering the shocking stories of how police forces handle domestic abuse complaints against their own officers. Justice for Women highlighted the injustices face by women who kill abusive partners. Why are so many women charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter if there is strong evidence of domestic violence? It is because, predominantly, men are making the judgments.
There was the recent case of Anthony Williams, who was sentenced to five years in jail for strangling his wife to death. She had her keys in her hand and was trying to escape. Judge Paul Thomas said that, in his view, Williams’s mental health was
“severely affected at the time”.
This is ridiculous. In 2019, Judge Hayden said:
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife”—
really, Justice Hayden? How about the fundamental right to life, or the fundamental right to say no? Lord Chief Justice Burnett said that the small number of sexism cases in courts gives a false impression. I say that all sexism in courts must be eradicated and judges removed.
We need more men tackling male violence against women. We need judges to be barred if they do not understand that any violence against women and girls is wrong. I welcome Baroness Helic’s amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill and I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will support it. We need to challenge and interrupt abuse at every level in society, so today, I challenge the judiciary. The pool from which judges are drawn is too narrow. Retention of women is dismal because of the abuse they suffer at every stage. Our judiciary is poorly served because of misogyny and discrimination. We ultimately need a wider pool if we are going to change the culture and structure. Let us start with three Ps—prevent, protect and prosecute.

Marion Fellows: I am fortunate: I am a white, heterosexual, well-educated woman. I am not a ’50s-born woman, and, as far as I am aware, I am fit in mind and body. I was married to the same man for 47 years and jointly raised two sons and a daughter. After leaving university, I received the same salary as men I worked alongside throughout my working life. Other women are not so lucky. In the spirit of International Women’s Day, I challenge the treatment of these less fortunate women today. I can list only a few.
I was raised in a different era by my mother, who was born in 1919. I raised my family differently and, for my daughter, some things were easier than they were for me. We have laws now on equal pay, protected characteristics and statutory maternity pay, which makes me wonder why, last month, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee, described pregnancy and maternity discrimination as one of the
“most urgent…threats to equality”
during this pandemic. I ask myself, is this to be a never-ending fight? The Government must introduce redundancy pay gap reporting by protected characteristics and reporting on the numbers of women who have  been pregnant or on maternity leave when they were made redundant.
I challenge the gender pension gap that still exists today. Women, particularly disabled, older, minority ethic, from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds and those with caring responsibilities, are among those who will have lower lifetime earnings for one reason or another. The gender pension gap is around 40%, more than twice the gender pay gap of 17%. This leads to £7,500 a year less pension for these women on average.
Finally, I also want to reference the results, which have already been mentioned, of a recent survey of 1,000 women commissioned by UN Women UK. Over 70% of UK women say that they have experienced sexual harassment in public. Only 3% of women aged 18 to 24 said that they had not experienced any of the behaviours that were asked about. Only 4% of women reported these incidents, with 45% of women saying that they did not believe reporting them would change anything. We all need to take this issue seriously. We are all aware of the tragedies that occur daily. We must make public places safer for all and we must desist from victim blaming.

Claire Coutinho: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this debate, and for her wider work championing women.
I was recently looking at a BBC poll from the early 2000s about the greatest Britons of all time. It is striking because only 13 of the top 100 are women, and most of those are royalty. That is not because women cannot be great explorers, scientists or war heroes; it is because, until relatively recently, we were not afforded those opportunities. What we have been through this past year, and what we are still going through, is like a war. In previous wars, the heroes would have been great men such as the Duke of Wellington, Nelson and Churchill. This time around, people will remember the names of Sarah Gilbert, Catherine Green, Kate Bingham and many more.
Although it is always important to reflect on the progress we have made, today is a day to reflect on how much more we have to do. Since before I became an MP, I have been privileged to work alongside brilliant organisations encouraging women to stand in public life, such as 50:50 Parliament and Women2Win. We know that women are much less likely to put themselves forward, but if we are going to rebuild from this pandemic, we are going to need the very best talent, no matter what their background or gender. We simply cannot afford to miss out. Although we should do all that we can to encourage women to put themselves forward for what I think is one of the best jobs in the world, I am pleased that the Government are also taking steps to address some of the challenges that may put women off, particularly around intimidation and abuse.
Like many others, this week I have been horrified by the disappearance of Sarah Everard. Her family are in all our thoughts, as is she. As someone who lived in that area for many years, I have both made that judgment to walk home alone at 9 pm and also felt the nagging fear of doing so.
When one in four women has experienced domestic abuse, and nearly 80% of all women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces, we have to acknowledge that there is a lot to do on women’s safety. The responses  that we have seen in the last few days show just how prevalent harassment and violence against women is. I know that I have experienced it: in the workplace, in a bar, in the street, on public transport and as a student—and that is completely in line with all the other women I know. As long as this continues, we will need the brilliant specialist services that we have. I constantly feel so grateful for East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services, and Reigate and Banstead Women’s Aid.
I welcome the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill and the hundreds of millions of pounds that we have added to funding domestic abuse services during the pandemic, but they will always need more funding as long as abuse is on the rise. I think what they would actually like, more than anything, is for us to take away their custom. I look forward to the progress that we can make on this, particularly through the upcoming ending violence against women and girls strategy.

Mohammad Yasin: It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. Until recently, thousands of women were detained indefinitely every year in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre on the outskirts of Bedford. Many of those women were survivors of rape, torture and trafficking, and had left their countries to find safety; yet, in the UK, they were locked up for weeks and even months on end, causing them huge mental distress.
In 2015, research by the charity Women for Refugee Women found that 40% of women that it spoke to had self-harmed while in detention. In the same year, the chief inspector of prisons called Yarl’s Wood a “place of national concern”. Campaigners, including women who had previously been detained in Yarl’s Wood, called for its complete closure—a measure that I have long called for. But the Home Office did not close Yarl’s Wood. The Home Office has now announced that it is planning to open a new immigration removal centre for women in County Durham. It has decided to open this new detention centre for women, in spite of the fact that the number of women detained under immigration powers is currently at an historic low
Immigration detention retraumatises women who have already survived serious human rights abuses. It is also often completely pointless. Home Office statistics show that in 2018, just 14% of asylum-seeking women who were released from detention centres were removed from the UK. This Government could not find resources in the recent Budget for any investment in areas that would help women towards greater equality, such as childcare, but they can find the resources to open an unnecessary detention centre that will retraumatise vulnerable women.

Andrew Mitchell: It is a privilege to take part in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my interests set out in the register.
I want to talk about the position of women across the world and the deep poverty that disfigures our world. I think the whole House will accept that we cannot understand international development unless we see it through the eyes of a girl or a woman, because girls and  women suffer most grievously from the effects of poverty. They suffer first and hardest from climate change, food insecurity, conflict and disorder. As we have heard, so many are in important caring roles, and they are often, in the developing world, the earners in families. Some 2.1 billion girls live in countries that, even before the pandemic, were not on track to meet any of the gender equality targets set down by the United Nations. One of the best ways of changing the world is to educate girls. If we educate girls, they marry later, educate their own children, tend to be more likely to be economically active, and adopt leadership roles in their communities. That is why the Prime Minister is so right to champion—to aspire to—every girl getting 12 years of education.
But all this great work will be prejudiced—British leadership will be prejudiced—if we break our promise on the 0.7% commitment. We have recently seen horrific cuts, often of more than 50%, in Britain’s role in this area. For example, in family planning—giving women control over their own fertility so that they can decide whether and when they have children—there has been huge British leadership since 2012 and before, but if these cuts go ahead, 8 million women will not get access to family planning. I have seen the powerful effect of British leadership in this area empowering women. I remember, on one occasion, watching 60 women sitting under a tree in Uganda hearing what was possible thanks to UK taxpayers. At the end, they were asked if they wanted to proceed to further consultation about contraception and women’s health, and every single hand under that tree went up. The cause of women’s empowerment will be set back if these fearsome cuts go ahead.
As chair of the G7, we are the only country cutting back. Only a week ago, France committed to 0.7% for the first time. Germany has reached 0.7%. The United States has added $15 billion to the aid budget. We are relinquishing our global leadership. Every story on the world stage will be about cutting life-saving support. One of the key aspects of global Britain is being trashed and binned. The Government must stop being timid and put this matter to a vote of this House. Failure to do so means that that they may be implementing an unlawful Budget from April. Let the Government ask the House its view on whether we wish to break the promise on which we were all elected just over a year ago.

Fiona Bruce: International Women’s Day is an opportunity to highlight how millions of women worldwide suffer discrimination, persecution and violence doubly on account of their gender and their beliefs. Many are subjected to some of the most egregious atrocities on earth today, pressed into slavery, sexual or otherwise, tricked and subjected to human trafficking, scarred mentally and physically through the use of rape in conflict. Young girls are sold as a commodity, deprived of an education and, as a result, of a livelihood and any chance of flourishing or reaching their full potential, subject to systematic abuses such as early or forced marriage, female genital mutilation and honour killings, or trapped in prostitution and poverty.
My duty, as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, is to speak out against this. I am proud to be the first woman to have been appointed to this role. Many women around the world  suffer lower social status or reduced legal rights, which can exacerbate the problems they encounter in trying to exercise their freedom of religion or belief.
It is good that tackling gender and belief-based violence is a priority for our Government. Let me focus on a few instances where the UK Government are taking action—although of course there is much more to be done. In Pakistan, the ongoing reports of forced marriage and conversion of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim women and girls, reportedly hundreds of girls a year, are alarming. I raised concerns about this a few days ago at a virtual meeting with our high commissioner in Pakistan. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign Office share these concerns and regularly raise them with the Government of Pakistan. In Nigeria, officials have in recent months raised with the Nigerian Government the case of Christian schoolgirl Leah Sharibu, abducted by Boko Haram and the last of her group still not released. Our Government are providing a package of humanitarian and stabilisation support there, including for women, but more—much more—needs to be done.
Turning to China, reports of dehumanisation of Uyghur women there are deeply distressing. The Foreign Secretary recently addressed the UN Human Rights Council, saying:
“The situation in Xinjiang is beyond the pale. The reported abuses—which include torture, forced labour and forced sterilisation of women—are extreme and they are extensive. They are taking place on an industrial scale. It must be our collective duty to ensure that this does not go unanswered.”
Indeed, we must all ensure, as a true response to International Women’s Day, that they do not go unanswered. More needs to be done.
Finally, Yazidi and Christian women in Iraq suffered horrific crimes at the hands of Daesh. Iraq must ensure that minority communities displaced by Daesh are allowed to return home safely. No one should suffer or be coerced doubly because of their conscience or their gender. More needs to be done.

Tulip Siddiq: Recently my four-year-old daughter proudly declared that she wants to be a politician when she is older, because she wants to work to make life easier for other people. Her words came back to haunt me when I saw my six-year-old constituent Gabriella Ratcliffe, whose life has been anything but easy.
The story of Gabriella’s childhood is well rehearsed. She was separated from her mother, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, when she was still being breastfed at 18 months. At the age of two, she had to wear a sack over her head when visiting her mother in prison, and she celebrated her third birthday in the waiting room at Evin prison. By the age of four, she had forgotten how to speak English, and so lost the ability to communicate with her father, Richard. At the age of five, she travelled across two continents, from Iran to the UK, saying goodbye to her mother indefinitely and promising to be brave.
I often see Gabriella on my Zoom calls with Richard, and she once asked me if mummy would be coming home in time for Mother’s Day—a plea from a young woman about her imprisoned mother to her female MP felt particularly poignant on International Women’s Day.
Yesterday it was reported that the Prime Minister and President Rouhani had a conversation about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release, and it was heavily implied that the £400 million debt that the UK owes to Iran was linked to my constituent’s case. I imagined being a fly on the wall, listening to two men at the top of their respective Governments discussing the fate of a poor woman who had been caught as a political pawn between the two countries, taken hostage and imprisoned for crimes she did not commit, mentally tortured for years, all to serve a diplomatic negotiation with an oppressive regime over issues including a debt dating back to the 1970s and the international arms trade.
For a lot of women we will hear about today, their tragedies have been caused by personal or local circumstances. Gabriella’s personal tragedy has been caused by global injustice, which has overwhelmingly been orchestrated by men. At this moment, Nazanin’s fate is held in the hands of men: President Rouhani, the judges in Iran and, of course, our Prime Minister.
I hope that Nazanin returns to the UK soon, and that she returns to a country that is on a path to true equality between men and women, where her daughter and my son can walk the same streets as equals.

Ruth Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who made a powerful speech.
“A woman is like a tea bag: you can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.”
After the year we have had, Eleanor Roosevelt’s words certainly strike a chord. Women have spent more time home schooling and are more likely to have been furloughed and to have experienced anxiety and loneliness. I want to thank all the women in Rushcliffe, whose sacrifices have got their families and communities through this pandemic. In particular, I want to thank four incredible women.
First, Hetvi Parekh recently won the Prime Minister’s Points of Light award for her volunteering with Sewa Day. She has provided hot meals to frontline NHS staff, furnished a respite room in Queen’s Medical Centre hospital, and made 750 activity packs for children on low incomes, which I am told involved wrestling with a staggering 29,000 pipe cleaners. No task is too big, no challenge too daunting. She is currently collecting Easter eggs for children living in refuges.
Then there is Nicola Brindley, with whom I am working to set up a network of J9 safe spaces in Rushcliffe, where survivors of domestic abuse can go to get help. J9 is named after Janine Mundy, who was murdered by her ex-husband. Nicola has trained 60 people in Rushcliffe. She set up J9 in all Nottingham’s jobcentres and launched a programme to train a domestic abuse specialist in every jobcentre across the country. That work has saved lives from day one.
Farah Jamil set up Meet, Greet and Eat a year ago—a project that enables adults with additional needs to come together and create a place they can call their own. It helps participants build confidence, communication and practical skills. The group provides food bags and hot meals to elderly people, and it wants to set up a café and a social supermarket, providing opportunities for adults with additional needs to learn, grow and be themselves.
Jill Mathers started the Cotgrave Community Kitchen in 2019 to tackle social isolation. It gets everyone together for a nutritious meal at an affordable price. Refusing to be beaten by lockdown, Jill and her volunteers provide 200 weekly food bags and takeaway meals. She also runs a mini-market with donations from FareShare. She cooked 188 Christmas lunches for local pensioners. She hopes she will soon be able to open a community café, providing a social space, training opportunities and a market for locally grown produce.
Women are survivors. Women are fighters. As the stories of Hetvi, Nicola, Farah and Jill show, women are the heroes at the heart of our communities.

Afzal Khan: International Women’s Day is a chance to celebrate women’s achievements, acknowledge the struggles that women continue to face and recommit ourselves to the ongoing fight for equality. The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “choose to challenge”—a reminder to challenge and call out gender bias and inequality.
It is clear that women in conflict zones carry some of the heaviest burdens. Horrors reported from Xinjiang reveal how Uyghur women in concentration camps have been violated as part of the Chinese Government’s brutal campaign to curb their Muslim population. The abuses they face include forced sterilisation and labour, sexual violence and rape, denouncements of faith and torture, all of which can be described only as genocidal acts. Action is desperately needed, so I implore the Government to consider sanctions and follow in the footsteps of America, Canada and the Netherlands in declaring China’s treatment of the Uyghurs as genocide.
As the son of a Kashmiri woman, it pains me deeply that women in Kashmir live under some of the most difficult conditions in the world. They are subjected to mass surveillance and sexual violence, and many are half-widows. Their painful stories need to come to an end, but for that to happen there must be sustainable peace in Kashmir, which cannot be imposed by military means. Time and again, the UK Government have maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue, but the Kashmir conflict came about as a direct result of Britain’s actions. To assume zero responsibility is frankly offensive.
Global Britain is meaningless unless the UK leads the global effort to protect and empower those women. It is disappointing that the Government have cut aid at a time like this; aid is often the first and last hope of improving women’s and girls’ lives. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the UN penholder on women, peace and security, the UK is in a rare position to do more. I urge the Minister and the Government to grasp with both hands the opportunity that is in front of them to make a genuinely transformational change that will improve the lives of women and girls globally.

Virginia Crosbie: It is a pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches by Members on both sides of the Chamber and of all sexes in such an important debate.
I take part in this debate knowing that we are many in this Chamber, but not enough. Two hundred and twenty, to be exact, were elected in 2019 to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons. It should be at least 325. Actually, we are 51% of the population, so it should be a few more, but I would happily take 325. We have some way to go. Why? Historically, this place was built by men, for men, as women did not have the vote and could not be MPs until 1918. Its traditions and procedures were developed by and for men, and, in the most part, the hangover persists.
In 2018, before I came here, the “UK Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit” was published. It identified
“barriers…to equal female representation in Parliament, including:
The culture of Parliament,”
with
“reports of bullying and harassment, and sexual harassment;
The challenges that working in Parliament poses for family life, including the unpredictability of business and…long hours;
The financial impact of standing for Parliament; and
Online threats…in particular gender-based intimidation, harassment and violence”
against women parliamentarians and candidates.
There has been progress, of course—220 is an all-time high, women Ministers can now take maternity leave without having to quit, there is childcare, and the hours are not quite so long. I am grateful that I benefit from the stand taken by my colleagues and my predecessors.
However, one of the barriers highlighted in the audit has not improved; in fact, it has got worse. Online abuse, intimidation and threats impact all MPs, but I believe that gender-based abuse is the biggest single impediment we have as a Parliament, and as a country, to ever reaching true equality. Without doubt, women receive more abuse than men. Many women in this place suffer horrendous amounts of abuse. Being called a “slag”, a “bitch”, a “whore” and worse can be a daily occurrence on social media. We refuse to be victims, but we must call the abuse out for what it is, because it is one of the main reasons that women choose not to enter politics or public life.
I recently called out for everyone in my constituency of Ynys Môn to stand up to the online hate—to call it out, to report it and to make doing so as normal as the hate itself has become. The support I have received has been inspiring, but I have also been contacted by women who tell me that they will not stand for public office because they have seen the level of abuse that I receive. Often, it is their families and children that they want to protect, rather than themselves.
In this debate celebrating women’s achievement, I ask everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity or political persuasion, not to ignore abusive comments, not to pass them off as banter and not to think that they do not matter, but to call out the hate. If we want a democracy that truly represents our beautiful, diverse country, then we as a society need to take a stand.

Yasmin Qureshi: It is so important that we have this debate each year to honour the contribution of women across society. Covid-19 has highlighted and exacerbated inequality. Because of deep-rooted gender inequality worldwide, women  and girls have experienced the pandemic differently. Some 47 million women worldwide are expected to fall into extreme poverty this year, and 20 million girls, on top of the 131 million out of school before the crisis, may now never return to school.
We have seen a huge surge in gender-based violence. In some parts of the world, it has been called a “shadow pandemic”. Women’s sexual and reproductive rights and services have been dramatically reduced. That is why the Opposition have been calling for gender analyses in the UK’s international response to covid-19. Instead, the Government shut down the Department for International Development, which was renowned for its work on gender equality around the world, and now, as the Father of the House pointed out earlier, they are slashing the aid budget.
The Government must reverse their decision to cut their aid from 0.7% to 0.5%. That will threaten lives. Let me give an example. There has been a 60% cut to the International Rescue Committee’s health programme in Sierra Leone, which helps over 3 million mostly teenage girls in a country where one in 17 women dies in pregnancy or childbirth. The global covid response has abandoned women and girls. Another programme in Rwanda, which was helping over 200,000 young girls, has also been scrapped.
On International Women’s Day, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and I launched a consultation on advancing gender equality in development. If we really want to understand how to address structural inequalities in our society and in the world, we must engage with communities and civil society, and understand the international perspective active in the global south. Will the Minister please speak to the Foreign Secretary and reverse the aid cuts that are taking place, because they are endangering so many women who are already in difficult circumstances? Only if we all fight together and stand in solidarity can we make a better, more equal world.

Flick Drummond: Like others, my thoughts are constantly with the family of Sarah Everard. I have daughters around the same age, and I can only imagine how devastated the family must be at what has happened. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her yearly reminder of the dangers that many women face, both here and around the world, as they continue to be attacked for their gender.
Last week I spoke to one of my oldest friends, Henrietta Blyth of Open Doors, on a Facebook Live chat. We talked about how Christian women around the world face the double danger of being attacked not only because of their gender, but because of their religion. We are seeing the systematic murder of women in leadership roles in places such as Afghanistan. Those women could be the future in a failed state and could make a difference, yet they are gunned down. On a more positive note, I welcome to her post Najla El Mangoush, who yesterday was confirmed as Libya’s Foreign Minister by its Parliament—the first woman to hold the post. I know that all Members of the House will wish her and her colleagues well in re-establishing peace and order  in Libya.
The theme of International Women’s Day this year is “Choose to Challenge”, and while I want more women to challenge for the leadership in their field, whatever it is, we must recognise that our ability to make that choice often depends on an accident of birth or nationality. I have been reading the World Economic Forum’s report on the global gender gap, which contains striking details on the subtleties of inequality. Without including women, who are half the world’s talent, we will not be able to deliver the fourth industrial revolution for all societies, or grow our economies for shared prosperity.
Technology is still overly dominated by men, but there is also potential for it to improve the place of women in the world. Technology offers us a means of education, and a channel for us to communicate with those who face oppression. It also offers a means for women, whose stories we might not otherwise hear, to get those stories to the outside world. Sometimes they are positive stories, but too often they are stories of abuse and neglect. Technology can help to empower women through education. “Knowledge is power” might be a cliché, but it is also a solution to reducing gender inequality. We should surely be using our foreign aid to harness the technology that women can use for education, business and leadership. The covid pandemic has shown us all how we can work differently, so in the spirit of this day, I “choose to challenge” every Government, organisation and non-governmental organisation to be more effective in using technology directly to empower women and beat gender inequality.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Women in my community have been shaken to the core by the abduction of my constituent, Sarah Everard. The ongoing investigation means that there is only so much we can say, but the response to the appeal and the investigation show that Sarah was much loved, and my thoughts and prayers go out to her family, her boyfriend, and her friends at this unimaginably difficult time.
Sarah’s disappearance has left so many women feeling unsafe. With the theme of International Women’s Day, I choose to challenge the disgusting victim shaming that we have seen since Sarah’s disappearance. It should go without saying that victims of gender violence are not to blame. Sarah did nothing wrong. All she did was walk home.
It should not be luck that sees us home safely at night; it should be our fundamental right, respected by all. So on Saturday, as the sun sets, I choose to challenge the reality that being a woman means I am not safe, and I will join Lambeth Councillors Anna Birley and Jess Leigh and others, who will be leading a vigil for Sarah and reclaiming our streets.
As we reclaim our streets in unity, I ask all women to remember what that unity means. Earlier this week, the world watched as a biracial woman recounted her struggle with mental health and her experience of racism. We then saw how easily and vocally people berated her and refused to believe her, even other women. I choose to challenge a feminism that is not intersectional and that all too easily forgets the impact of racism on so many women. It is wrong for those who have never faced racism to discount the experience of those who have, just as it is wrong when men discount our experiences of sexism and harassment. Our allyship cannot be selective.
In our country, one in four black women dies in childbirth. I know this pain all too well. My own pregnancy nearly killed me and my daughter did not survive. The children of black women have a 121% increased risk of being stillborn and a 50% increased risk of neonatal death. As women, we are told that it is just one of those things, but staggering health inequalities and outcomes tell a different story. When, like me, you relive the experience again and again, it is not hard to find instances where how you are perceived or if you are believed as a black woman make all the difference. I pay tribute to the work of the campaign Five X More, which continues to raise awareness and call for change. I hope the House will give Members time to fully debate the issue of black maternal health.
I choose to challenge a world in which all women do not have the equality they deserve.

Derek Thomas: The UK is a signatory to the 17 sustainable development goals, which I wish we discussed much more in the House. Succeeding in delivering them will lead to women and girls having the greatest opportunity to live full, safe and rewarding lives. That is not because the 17 goals are targeted specifically towards the life chances and rights of women and girls, but because we know that, sadly, women and girls are most likely to be adversely affected by poverty, prejudice, limited opportunities and poor quality water, to mention just a few of the injustices in the world.
The UK has reason to be proud of its role and record of raising those issues, which have an impact on world’s poorest people, as we meet our foreign aid commitments and responsibilities. However, to mark International Women’s Day, I call on the Government to review our progress on the sustainable development goals and especially the areas that most affect women.
The sustainable development goals cover 17 specific areas, but I want to mention just a few. When we adopted the goals in 2015, we said that we would commit to ruling out poverty, ending hunger, providing good health and wellbeing, ensuring access to education, delivering gender equality, providing clean water and sanitation, and giving greater access to decent work and economic growth. Those are just seven of the 17 goals and they all offer real hope, opportunity and improved life chances for women and girls around the world.
Given the Government’s continuing commitment to those worthy outcomes, I gently ask them to question themselves about the justification for the cut in our UK foreign aid. International aid has led the war on forced labour among migrant women and started to crack down on human trafficking. The UK has led the global action on that. Foreign aid has led to African women finding a market for their camels’ milk and been essential in the fight to end violence against women and girls in Lebanon. UK aid is critical in addressing the displacement of women due to conflict, climate change and, more recently, the covid pandemic.
As we mark International Women’s Day, will the Government consider what impact cutting international aid will have now and for years to come on the women and girls who need our help if they are to lead full and fulfilling lives?

Abena Oppong-Asare: I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this debate to mark International Women’s Day.
I would like to begin by celebrating a number of women in my constituency who have gone above and beyond to serve our community during this difficult year. Dr Sam Parrett OBE, principal of London and South East Education Group, has done so much to ensure that young people were supported throughout the pandemic. Sue Stockham, an ovarian cancer survivor, is using her experience to raise awareness about the signs of ovarian cancer and the importance of getting help quickly during the pandemic. Carmel Britto is the founding director of LPF Kiddies Club, which offers educational enrichment to young children from African and Caribbean backgrounds. Kate Heaps is the chief executive of Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice. Yeukai Taruvinga is the founder and director of Active Horizons, a charity that works to support black and ethnic minority young people in Bexley. Yeukai grew up in Zimbabwe but came to this country after her political activism in Zimbabwe made her the target of a campaign of intimidation and violence.
And of course, there are the many women who have served on the frontline during the pandemic as doctors, nurses, carers, cleaners and other key workers. I am afraid I cannot name them all, but we must not forget the sacrifices they have made and the burden that has fallen on them. I also take this opportunity to support Unison’s campaign to create a lasting memorial to the matchgirls—the women who took strike action against poor working conditions at the Bryant and May match factory in east London.
As well as celebrating the achievements of women, this debate is an opportunity to talk about the challenges and barriers that women continue to face in all walks of life. Given the events of the last week, I want to talk about violence against women. My thoughts are with Sarah Everard’s family and friends at this awful time, but I also think of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry. While those cases are particularly shocking, we must not forget that most violence against women occurs within the home. In the boroughs I represent, domestic violence is a significant problem. The pandemic and lockdown have only made this situation worse, with the Met reporting an 8.5% increase in domestic abuse incidents compared with the year before.
I will finish with three specific asks of the Government. First, the Government need to properly invest in and reform the sectors that overwhelmingly employ women—most notably, the care sector. Secondly, the Government must commit to be more transparent about the impact of policies and decisions on women, particularly black and Asian women, including through gender pay gap reporting. Finally, the Government must provide targeted support for women to recover from the pandemic, including investment in women’s mental health services, helping young women back into work and funding specialist domestic violence services.

Miriam Cates: This debate gives us a fantastic opportunity to celebrate women. As 21st-century women in Britain, we  have so much to be thankful for: education, opportunities, free healthcare and full equality under the law. Much of what has been achieved over the last century has been about empowering women by releasing choices and freedoms that our great grandmothers could barely have imagined. We have the choice over who we vote for, choices over fertility, choice of career and freedom over our finances. Those achievements should be celebrated, and we are deeply grateful to those who have gone before.
But in recent years, the focus of progress has become too narrow, and some of the things we are now fighting for in the name of equality are actually reducing the choice, freedom and happiness of many women. So much of our recent attention in the UK has rightly been focused on trying to enable women to both work and have a family life, with more free childcare, more flexible working, equal pay and excellent maternity rights. That has certainly benefited many women, particularly those who are well paid, with careers that are stimulating, rewarding and influential. But many women do not have a career—they have a job—and for many women, if they had a choice, they would spend more time with their children and less time in the workplace.
Sadly, women in previous generations did not have the choice to work, but in modern Britain many women no longer have the choice not to work. Our individualistic tax system places a huge penalty on single-earner families, with UK families paying as much as 30% more tax than those in similar countries.
The penalty is so high that for a one-earner family to have the same standard of living as a single person on median income, the breadwinner needs to have a salary of £60,000—a wage that is simply unattainable for the vast majority of families. For many women, then, there is no choice but to work long hours, not in some stimulating, highly rewarding professional job, but in a job that pulls them away from their young children and denies them the time and energy that they want to spend on their families. A recent YouGov survey showed that 78% of mothers of pre-schoolers would prefer to work part time or not at all.
As we approach Mother’s Day, we need to recognise that mothers who invest time in their children are doing a great service to society, and that a woman’s value is not determined only by her economic output. Choosing to stay at home when children are small should not be a privilege that only the richest can afford and should not be seen as an inferior choice or second best. For progress to continue, we must enable women to have a genuine choice to spend more time with their children if they want to, including by looking at reforming the tax system to recognise family responsibilities. Let us celebrate International Women’s Day by committing to giving all UK women real freedom and real choice over both their work and their family lives.

Joanna Cherry: In a debate to mark International Women’s Day, it should not be a revolutionary statement to say that sex matters. But it is and it does.
Despite the fact that men’s violence against women is a leading cause of the premature death of women globally, research in the UK and Europe is inadequate.  Thanks to Karen Ingala Smith’s Femicide Census, we now have detailed, comparable data on femicides in the UK since 2009. In a report published at the end of last year, the Femicide Census examined 1,425 cases of women killed by men. It found that the number of women killed every year by men has stayed distressingly consistent over the past decade, at between 124 and 168 each year. This raises serious questions about the state’s response to men’s violence against women in the past decade.
The Femicide Census believes there is a lack of willingness to tackle the root causes of this violence, and identifies a number of systemic problems, including a lack of funding for and cuts to the specialist women’s sector and a failure to collate, store and make easily accessible transparent, disaggregated data on violence against women. We need this data because sex matters. Women are uniquely vulnerable to men’s violence because men are so much stronger than us. That is a fact of our different biological make-up. Sex matters.
This week, as women responded on social media to the horror of the abduction of Sarah Everard, one woman tweeted:
“Half my timeline is women being told they’re responsible for keeping themselves safe from male violence. Half is women being told they’re bigots for insisting on retaining existing protections against male violence.”
Her exasperation echoes that felt by many women. It feels like our society is going backwards. Women who speak up for women’s rights are accused of bad behaviour, while men accused of abusive behaviour are often shielded from the consequences of their actions.
Men are still largely in charge, and many women who get the top are too scared, once they are there, to challenge men who want to silence and control women. So they invent a new kind of feminism—one that is so inclusive and so kind that it will not dare name the problems that women face. Nobody wants to pit women against men, but we need to be able to name the problem of male violence against women. We also need to be able to acknowledge that sex does matter, without being labelled bigots. The high incidence of male violence against women shows us that sex is a reality that we cannot ignore. If we ignore the reality of sex, we distort reality in a way that will only make women more vulnerable.

Sara Britcliffe: I am pleased to contribute to this debate as the first female MP for Hyndburn and Haslingden.
International Women’s Day is hugely important in recognising women around the world. It is a time to reflect on the work that they do and a day to celebrate all that we have achieved. But women have significant battles to face whenever they try to succeed, progress or do something to make a difference.
“A little girl incapable of thinking for herself”; “A cut-and-paste MP out of her depth”; “A pygmy lower than vermin”—these are just some of the insults I have received since being elected just over a year ago. I have been objectified, patronised and threatened on more occasions than I care to count. My age, my looks and particularly my gender have been used as weapons to try to undermine my confidence and “put me back in my place.”
Sadly, my experiences are not unique or even in the minority. Indeed, I would be surprised if we could find one female Member of Parliament across the whole House who has not had some kind of threat or abuse, or just casual sexism during their time in office.

Chris Clarkson: As my hon. Friend knows, my parents and quite a lot of my family live in her constituency. Their opinion of her is that she is an extremely capable Member of Parliament. She is also the youngest Member on our Benches. Does she agree that it is really important for young women to see strong women in this place?

Sara Britcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend. I absolutely agree.
On a day when we celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women, I wanted to share my own story and highlight that, even in 2021, the experience of men and women can still be very different. Even by highlighting this problem and making this speech today, I am encouraging the trolls, the incels and the other people who like to see me as a target. I will probably be accused of being a man-hater, or dismissed as overly emotional or seeking attention.
It is not just in politics that we see this. Women in every industry—from journalism to the armed forces, from law to business and those on the factory floor—report similar experiences. Many stayed silent until last night, as we read and heard about Sarah Everard. They opened up because they realise that this happens in everyday society. For the first time, I publicly spoke about being mugged at 12 years old. I spoke about it because of comments that hit home about “not walking down that street at night alone.” This is what we still see today in this day and age.
Through learning from other women and recognising the position I hold, silence is no longer an option. We need to speak about this because we need to break the norm. I am not saying that to suggest I am a unique victim; I am saying it because it is a widespread experience for women. We all need to stand up because it has to stop.
To finish, I would like to end with a quote from Malala Yousafzai:
“I raise up my voice—not so I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard…we cannot succeed when half of us are held back.”

Carolyn Harris: Today, I would like to celebrate the achievements of a few women that I am proud to have in my life. This year’s theme is “Choose to challenge” and these women have done just that—achieving great things, often in the face of adversity. These are women who deserve to have their stories shared and their names remembered.
I have a team of staff who are predominantly women. The newest member of our team is a young lady from Kirby called Melissa Rice. Remember that name and if you read one book this year, read hers: “Sobering: Lessons Learnt the Hard Way on Drinking, Thinking and Quitting”. I first met Melissa back in 2019 when she was living at Amy’s Place, a recovery house set up by the Amy Winehouse Foundation for young women who are overcoming drug and alcohol addiction. Even then,  this was a woman who wanted to use her experience for good and for change. Melissa moved to Amy’s Place after spending time at residential addiction centres in Wiltshire and London.
After years of drinking and several attempts to manage her addiction at home, with the help of outstanding specialists and therapists Melissa has now been sober for over three years. Melissa chose to challenge her addiction and her book, which follows her journey in all its sometimes heart-wrenching glory, is outstanding in the way it challenges the perception of addiction and its associated taboos. It has made me cry, but it has also made me laugh out loud at times. Melissa is a strong young woman and I am so proud of her determination not just to turn her life around, but to help others to do the same.
Helping others is also key to the work of two other wonderful women who deserve to be celebrated. Powered by the belief that hygiene and being clean is a human right not a luxury, journalist Sali Hughes and beauty PR legend Jo Jones joined forces three years ago to set up Beauty Banks. This not-for-profit organisation collects discontinued and unused stock from an array of high street and high-end brands and redistributes it to those experiencing hygiene poverty. Sali and Jo chose to challenge the poverty that they were witnessing, and they challenged the beauty industry to do something about it. The results of their determination have made such a difference to the lives of so many. Beauty Banks: please look it up! The dignity it gives to so many is something that we should all be championing. So I say to all women today, and to all young girls who are the women of tomorrow: be strong, be determined, be supportive, be yourself and be proud of your achievements.

Jackie Doyle-Price: May I first say how nice it is to see so many men contributing to the debate this year? That has not always been the case in previous years, but the fight for equality for women is as much their fight as it is ours, and I am grateful for their support. We should all be champions of equality.
I was driving home last evening when the news about the arrest in the case of Sarah Everard was breaking. I was listening to the radio and a gentlemen journalist expressed his horror at the report that 97% of all women aged between 18 and 24 had experienced some degree of sexual assault or sexual harassment. I do not think that figure will come as a surprise to any woman in this room, because we spend all our lives dealing with the reality that some men objectify us and behave as sexual predators. It is so sad that it takes such a horrendous case as the one we are living through at the moment to bring that home, but this has become normalised. That is why I make no apology for continuing to fight for women’s safe spaces. This is our lived reality. Not a day goes by when we do not take a decision to protect our own safety; that has become part of the way of living as a woman.
There is so much I could say today, but there is so little time. I want to raise the issue of the criminal justice system. I am sure that many Members will have been horrified to see the sentence handed down for the murder of Ruth Williams. Her husband, who was her murderer, received a sentence of just five years. At a time when some people are mooting 10-year sentences  for bringing down statues, I think that puts a very low value on a woman’s life. It feels to me that the criminal justice system is perpetuating a fiction that women in domestic contexts are effectively the property of their husbands or partners, and that is why we see such low sentences in cases of domestic abuse that lead to death. That really needs to be tackled.
In the few seconds I have left, I would like to pay tribute to Keira Bell, a very inspiring woman I had the good fortune to meet last month. Keira had the experience of being put on gender dysphoria treatment as a teenager. It led to hormone treatment and a double mastectomy, but she realised that her issue was not that she wanted to be a man; she was a lesbian. This brings home the real difficulty we have with gender dysphoria treatment for children. We must ensure that our pathways are safe and that we do not make young girls do things that are irreversible when the issue is their sexuality.

Janet Daby: I am grateful to speak in this debate, and although it should really be a debate of celebration, I shall begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard. We all need to do all we can to ensure that the UK is a safe place for all women. I also wish to acknowledge the powerful and meaningful contribution from the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), who spoke a moment ago.
I now wish to turn my focus to the cruelty that so many women experience in other parts of the world. The brutal Chinese communist party regime in China has put hundreds of thousands of lives under threat. The women of the Uyghur Muslim community are being persecuted as we speak, in what our Government really need to accept is an attempt at genocide. In Xinjiang province, women have been sterilised en masse in an attempt to reduce the population, women have been forced to have abortions and women have been separated from their children as they go off to prison camps and their children go to orphanages. In the prison camps they are systematically raped by prison guards. They are beaten and their morale is broken. Footage has been found of large-scale forced labour where they are picking cotton, which then ends up on our clothes rails. It is devastating speaking about this, but what is even worse is that our Government are doing nothing. We sit back and merely condemn the Chinese regime, and the suffering of Uyghur women is getting worse by the day. I call for the Foreign Secretary to impose sanctions on the Chinese officials committing these abuses and to declare that it is a programme of genocide.
Women are also being persecuted for their faith. Open Doors UK has written about women and girls being at greater risk of gender-specific religious persecution, including forced marriages, sexual violence and emotional abuse. ActionAid UK has made it clear that the UK has a significant impact on challenging the oppression of women around the world. If we restored the 0.7% rate of overseas aid, which our Government tragically cut last year, it would make a huge difference to so many people’s lives.
We are co-leaders of the UN action coalition on gender-based violence. How can we hold that position with integrity while at the same time breaking our financial promises to charities and NGOs around the world? Today we are reminded of male violence against women.  We have come so far as women, but there is still so much more to challenge. I ask hon. and right hon. Ladies from across the political divide that we are not divided on these issues.

Dehenna Davison: I start by echoing the comments and sadness expressed by so many colleagues about Sarah Everard. I cannot begin to imagine what her family are going through, but I send my deepest thoughts and prayers to them and to the families of all those mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
I entered the world of politics completely by accident in 2009. Little did I know that 10 years later, I would be one of the record 220 female MPs here on the green Benches, proudly representing Bishop Auckland. Some of those on the Opposition Benches may groan, but my accidental interest in politics was sparked after watching a video at school about our first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Taking politics out of the equation, because at that time I did not know the difference between Labour and the Tories anyway, seeing a woman so unapologetically powerful and in the highest job in the land meant that I grew up never for a second doubting that a woman’s place could be in No. 10. Again putting politics aside, that is why I so warmly welcomed Kamala Harris becoming the first female Vice-President of the United States, because representation matters.
In the decade since then, so much has changed for women. Lazy stereotypes have been consistently challenged and we are seeing more representation across all walks of life. We have seen the first female winner of the Abel prize for mathematics, the first female Doctor Who, and we have even had the first Marvel film to feature a female solo lead with “Captain Marvel”. I am pleased to say I have a figure of her standing proudly in my office in Parliament.
In this place, much has been introduced to tackle the obstacles faced by women today and to try to demolish them for the next generation. We have had the Equality Act 2010 and the largest ever single investment to help end female genital mutilation. We are leading the world in promoting the right of every girl to quality education. We are protecting women. We have reformed divorce laws for the first time in 50 years. We will soon have the online harms Bill, which is set to challenge how we tackle harmful online content, and we are in the final stages of the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, but we cannot legislate to change attitudes.
As this year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Choose to challenge”, I want to challenge the double standards that exist in society for women. A female worker is still more likely to face questions on balancing home and work life, as though home is where we women should be. If a man is a leader, a woman is bossy. If a man is considered, a woman is over-emotional. If a man speaks his mind, a woman is oversharing. A man can react, but a woman can only ever overreact.
To any woman wanting to enter politics at local or national level, this is a rallying cry. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced by fear. We will not stand for abuse, and we will be here to lift one another, because with every female elected, we see greater representation and, with that, the hope that one day a young girl watching this debate will see someone who looks like  her, and she will know that she can achieve anything—becoming an MP, Home Secretary or even Prime Minister—because, after all, a woman’s place is anywhere she wants to be.

Jessica Morden: Can I, too, associate myself with all the thoughts expressed for Sarah Everard and all those mentioned?
International Women’s Day and this debate are a chance for us both to celebrate those who came before us and to commit to fight for a better future for the women to come. In celebrating those who came before us, can I start by putting on record my appreciation for the fantastic inspiring women of the Statue for Lady Rhondda group, led by the feisty campaigner Julie Nicholas, who are fundraising for a statue of Lady Rhondda in Newport as one of the next statues in the Monumental Welsh Women campaign? Newport East’s Lady Rhondda, a suffragette who campaigned for women to take their seats in the other place, has been described as the
“greatest global businesswoman of her era.”
She was the editor of Time and Tide magazine, which campaigned for gender equality, and she even survived the sinking of the Lusitania. Any one of these achievements would have secured her place in history, but she did it all. It is fitting that we celebrate her in this way, as you cannot be what you cannot see.
I would like to take a moment to thank all those dedicated women on the frontline as key workers in my constituency during the pandemic, as women are twice as likely as men to be key workers in Wales. I also want to put on record my thanks to Judith Paget and Sarah Aitken at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board; Jane Mudd, Newport City Council leader; Pam Kelly, Gwent’s chief constable; and all those carrying the enormous responsibility in their leadership roles in this unprecedented year.
I want to highlight research by the Welsh gender equality charity Chwarae Teg in its third “State of the Nation” report, which monitored the impact of women’s experiences, and thank it for the focus this brings on ensuring that we are not complacent. The effect of sector shutdowns, business closures and unemployment is falling disproportionately on women. Young women in particular are more likely to lose their jobs in retail and hospitality. Women are more likely to be furloughed, and 70,000 pregnant women and new mothers have been discriminated against in Government schemes. Women of colour, too, have been excluded from support schemes and have been hit particularly hard in their employment.
We know that women are more likely to carry out caring responsibilities and home-schooling, and as Chwarae Teg points out, now is not the time for the Government to be suspending gender pay reporting. If we do not know the scale of the problem, we cannot address it. In the words of the Women and Equalities Committee,
“this should have been a time for more—not less—transparency.”
The Government should review the impact of their policies on woman, and the recovery from covid must be an equal recovery. We have also seen the worrying rise in domestic abuse, and I want to thank Welsh Labour Government Ministers for our partnership working  and for the focus they have put on tackling this issue by giving the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence sector in Wales extra funding this year.
Lady Rhondda wrote that the suffragette movement gave women
“hope of freedom and power and opportunity.”
It is vital, as we rebuild after this pandemic, that we progress from where we were so that every woman has the freedom and power and opportunity to live their life however they wish.

Chris Clarkson: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on International Women’s Day as a Member from the original suffragette city of Manchester, home of Emmeline Pankhurst, and as a proud feminist. Women are the majority of the UK’s population, but only a third of the Members of this place. While I am sure there is a strong quality versus quantity argument to be made, that sits badly with the majority of us who value fairness. For me, the problem lies partly in the belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a young woman to have a male mentor or adviser, but it is seen somehow as unusual or undesirable for a man to look up to a women as a role model.
I was lucky enough to grow up with strong female role models, and I was later encouraged by some remarkable women on my way to this place. I would like to take a moment to thank them from this Chamber, because I simply would not be here without them. In particular, I would like to thank Judith Tope, who taught me the value of taking your duty seriously and yourself less so; Laura Evans, one of the most selfless, self-effacing and genuinely good people I know, and hopefully the next Mayor of Greater Manchester; and my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, who changed my life forever over a glass of wine in her kitchen simply with the line, “Why don’t you stand?”
It is mind-boggling to people of my generation that there should be any barrier to a woman being able to achieve her potential, and I have to hope that the idea will be utterly inconceivable to generations after. However, until they are on these Benches and the third, fourth and fifth woman Prime Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box, we have a job of work to do to remove structural injustices. I am proud to say that I have never needed an all-women shortlist to lose a selection to a colleague, and every woman who has beaten me has done so by being better than me. I would say that Conservative women are the equals of Conservative men, but some of them are very dear friends and I do not want to talk them down.
I pay tribute to women such as the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who stuck it out as a feminist in frontline politics when the derision and value judgments that still seep out of the darkest recesses of society were mainstream values. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), a fellow Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, took on the City boys’ club with a backbone of steel and a brain the size of Canada. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), an inspirational young woman, has achieved more in her 26 years than many of us have in our 30-plus, and, much to my chagrin, is my mother’s favourite MP. My hon. Friend the Member  for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) ran one of the most successful local authorities in the country before turning her attention to these Benches.
There is much more talent out there, and we have to recognise that the problem is not a lack of ambition or qualified candidates; it is a system that needs an International Women’s Day because, quite simply, the other 364 are men’s days. I join colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) in pushing to ensure that we as men do more to support strong women candidates into politics, and in working to ensure that more men and boys understand that a woman’s place is wherever she says she wants it to be.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) wished to be here, but she is detained on other work.
Our thoughts today are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard, and with all those who have suffered from male violence against women. It must end, and all men have a duty to play our part.
I wish to focus on endometriosis, a condition that can have a profound long-term negative impact on all aspects of life. Endometriosis affects one in 10 women from puberty to the menopause. It takes an average of eight years from onset to diagnosis. The delay has been unchanged for a decade, and in Wales it is nine years. I applaud the work of Health Ministers in Wales and England on endometriosis, and encourage them to ensure ongoing studies into pain alleviation, such as the use of medical cannabis.
This is not only a matter for Health Ministers. A recent study by the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis with Endometriosis UK found that 38% of those surveyed feared losing their jobs, and 35% had a reduced income due to the condition. Accessing support can be difficult. Statutory sick pay for a linked period of sickness lasts for up to three years, penalising those with chronic conditions. Hon. Members will recall that the period from onset to diagnosis is eight years in England and nine in Wales. Many of those most severely affected struggle to access personal independence payments and universal credit, partly as the assessment fails to recognise long-term intermittent conditions.
This pandemic has highlighted some of the outmoded patterns of our welfare system, which need to be reformed, but many with endometriosis were already painfully aware of the system’s deficiency. That is one reason why I will continue to campaign for better health and welfare provision, and make the case for the devolution of welfare, so that in Wales, with our higher rates of long-term illness and disability, we can create a fairer system for all in their time of need.

Naseem Shah: The world is not the same place as it was at the time of the last International Women’s Day. The challenges we face globally and locally have been unprecedented and have required unprecedented responses. I want to highlight some literally life-saving contributions by some amazing women in my constituency. Unfortunately, time does not allow me  to thank all the women I would like to include—all the local champions, women who have volunteered in their local communities during this crisis, nurses, teachers, carers and key workers—so I will focus on the response to the pandemic itself and, in particular, the women across the public sector who have played a huge role in shaping the structures crucial to dealing with the situation we have found ourselves in.
First, I thank the local leader of my council, Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, the chief executive of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Kersten England, and our director of public health, Sarah Muckle, for all their efforts and leadership during the pandemic and the vital work that they continue to do to help us come out of lockdown. I also thank vice-chancellor Shirley Congdon for her leadership of our university, which was ranked No. 1 recently for social mobility. With the contributions of the chief officer of the clinical commissioning group, Helen Hirst, and Mel Pickup, the chief executive officer of the local hospital, Bradford Royal Infirmary, which is in my constituency, we are looking forward to getting out of the lockdown soon. The joint senior responsible officers, Nancy O’Neill and chief nurse Karen Dawber, who are responsible for the roll-out of testing centres and vaccine roll-out, have worked tirelessly to ensure that the people of Bradford are supported throughout the pandemic.
Today marks a year since the opening of our first designated covid ward, ward 31 at the BRI, under the leadership of Sister Emma Barnes. I pay special tribute to those on the frontline, such as Dr Deborah Horner, our consultant anaesthetist, who led on the operational management and restructuring of services across the hospital during the pandemic; Sara Hollins, our director of midwifery services, who has transformed the service completely after being here for less than four years, not only reducing stillbirths by a quarter, but transforming services to respond to the pandemic; and our ICU matron, Marianne Downey, who has led the ICU through the most challenging of times.
We have lost so many loved ones during the pandemic, and Shaheen Kauser, our Muslim chaplain, has worked seven days a week providing loved ones with comfort and support during these most important times of grief and heartbreak. During this pandemic, I have found myself calling NHS staff, particularly our chief nurse Karen Dawber, at very unreasonable hours. Karen told me that her inspiring grandma, Joan Dawber, was a midwife, nurse and health visitor during world war two. In the ’60s, Joan was involved in the first trial of the TB vaccine, and now Karen is involved in the covid vaccine roll-out. The work of all these women and others across my constituency inspires me to do what I do, and for that I am very grateful. Here’s to International Women’s Day and to all these women—may we know them, may we be them, may we praise them.

Sally-Ann Hart: I echo the sentiments that my colleagues have expressed today about Sarah Everard and her family.
This year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Choose to Challenge”, and I am reminded of that famous quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
“One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes.”
The choices we make are ultimately our responsibility. To me, this quote says that life is about making choices and decisions, not just sitting back and accepting the status quo. Sometimes it is right to stand up and challenge, and to choose. We in this House have an awesome responsibility in that our choices and decisions impact directly on the lives of thousands, and indeed millions, of people around the country and sometimes the world. The choices we make matter.
As we think about this year’s theme “Choose to Challenge”, I think about all the women locally in Hastings and Rye who do not talk about making a difference, but who are doing it every single day in their actions, from Joe Chadwick-Bell, who took over as chief operating officer of the local NHS trust last October in the midst of the pandemic, and who has inspired and steered her team through some of the toughest months they have ever faced, to Natalie Williams, who runs the Hastings food bank and has tirelessly devoted her energy and enthusiasm to supporting and helping the most vulnerable in our communities.
Then there are those in local government, such as Becky Shaw, who is the chief executive officer of East Sussex County Council, and Jane Hartnell, who is the managing director of Hastings Borough Council. Both have shown grit and dedication over the last year to help in the response to covid-19. Frontline leaders, from Dawn Whittaker, the chief fire officer for East Sussex fire and rescue, to Jo Shiner, the chief constable for Sussex police, have shown tireless dedication to leading their teams and instilling confidence and security in the communities they serve as we have battled through these dark times.
I could keep going. From Katy Bourne, our police and crime commissioner; to Councillor Kim Forward, the leader of Hastings Borough Council; Rebekah Gilbert, the mayor of Rye; Jacki Monroe from the DWP; and chief inspector Sarah Godley at Hastings and Rother police, all these women and many others besides have chosen throughout their lives not to accept their lot. Instead, they have chosen to challenge, chosen to reach and chosen to be ambitious in the pursuit of serving others and giving back to the communities they call home. If we choose to embrace their light and inspiration, if we choose to shun the pessimism of others and if we choose to challenge, in time we can make this a more just and equal world. The leadership and inspiration of women that we see across Hastings and Rye will be recognised and commonplace in all four corners of this country and the world.

Apsana Begum: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, just as it was a pleasure to deliver my maiden speech in this debate last year. I am grateful to be able to address the House today, as well as the newly elected chair of the all-party group on domestic abuse and violence.
In the short time that I have today, I wish to pay tribute to women who have been subjected to honour-based abuse. Honour-based abuse is often misunderstood. This is despite the fact that, in 2019 alone, the charity, Karma Nirvana, reported seeing a more than 60% increase  in the people using its helpline. Honour-based abuse may be best described as a collection of practices, or a code, used to control behaviour in order to protect perceived beliefs and honour. Breaking this code is often seen by perpetrators as having brought shame on a family or a community.
All around the world, honour-based abuse can lead to horrific situations and outcomes. Two cases have been on my mind this month. In south Asia, a man was filmed carrying the head of his 17-year-old daughter, whom he had beheaded because of her alleged affair with a man of whom he did not approve. I have also been thinking about Ayesha Arif Khan in Ahmedebad who filmed herself smiling moments before she killed herself because she could not deliver enough dowry to her husband and his family.
Honour-based abuse does not always present itself in horrific murder and suicide, but it exists in day-to-day life and we would all do well to recognise that. We can do so when we think about how many women are policed or make decisions on the basis of the honour code. The question of what people will say deprives women of opportunities, choices, dreams and rights. The dangers of breaking the honour code are real, along with the associated risk of violence. I know that pain all too well.
Contrary to the common understanding of honour-based abuse, it is not something that is rooted in culture or religion. It is important to recognise it as a form of abuse that cuts across all countries, all cultures and all religions and none. Members may be surprised to learn that I felt that the comments made by a man in the public sphere recently might resonate with some survivors. He said, “I was trapped, but I did not know I was trapped. That is like the rest of my family. My father and my brother are trapped. They do not get to leave, and I have huge compassion for that”. It appears that a person does not need to be a woman, or even from an ethnic minority background, to experience the honour code—indeed, they might even be a royal.
There needs to be a statutory definition of honour-based abuse in the Domestic Abuse Bill. The racialising of honour-based abuse needs to stop. We need to see it in a framework that recognises patriarchy and inequality as the root cause of violence against women and girls, rather than placing it in a cultural context. Even though the devastating impacts of this type of abuse are felt in some communities more than others, we need our laws to lead the world in this way.

Anthony Mangnall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate. It has been a pleasure to follow her work in the Westminster Hall debates when they were taking place and her continued action on this issue.
I rise to speak in this House as chair of the all-party group on preventing sexual violence in conflict, an initiative that I worked on with the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and have continued to work on since I was elected.
Before I undertake to describe what we can do, I would like to pay tribute to where we have got to with the Domestic Abuse Bill. It has been remarkable achievement for the Government, working across the parties, to get it  to a place in which we can make a real and meaningful difference. Communities in my constituency are grateful to see the progress that has been made. Organisations such as SASHA, based in Totnes, are hoping that we will be able to pass this into legislation in due course.
I would like to speak about the international approach. Each year, the United Kingdom stands up on International Women’s Day and reaffirms its commitment to the millennium development goals for gender equality, reaffirms its commitment to women’s education, and reaffirms its commitment to seeing through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. Unfortunately, this year, I can only think that these are hollow words, because the impact of the forthcoming cut in international development aid from 0.7% to 0.5% will place a significant burden on the way in which we tackle women’s rights. The way in which people in Syria, Libya and Somalia are able to be helped by the projects that we put forward is now cast into doubt. The reason we have pushed forward these policies is not that there is a legal obligation to do so, not that Parliaments and Governments of yesteryear decided to put forward an agreement that would hold and lock in Parliament, but because there was a moral duty for us to stand up for those who were most endangered around the world. There was a moral duty for us to be able to help those in some of the most difficult scenarios and circumstances in the world.
In the time that the Government have before there is a vote on this issue—and there must be a vote on the 0.7%—I hope that they will rethink their approach, maintain the 0.7%, and maintain our commitment to tackling women’s rights and eradicating gender-based violence. Make no mistake—gender-based violence is a pandemic. It is a pandemic that was here before covid and it will be here long after. If we have the strength and ability to push this, we can garner international co-operation, create new institutions, ring-fence spending and ensure that the United Kingdom is seen as a country that stands up for women’s rights across the globe and that is not shirking its duties.

Alex Davies-Jones: Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a genuine honour to speak in this debate, in what has been an especially difficult week for women across the UK. It is crystal clear to me that this country has a severe systemic problem with male violence. As has already been mentioned, last week a 16-year-old girl died in disturbing circumstances, practically on my doorstep. South Wales police have since confirmed that the death, which took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is being treated as a murder, and last night a man was charged. Of course, we are all aware of the sensitivities around Sarah Everard’s case; my thoughts are with both families, as well as those who have lost a loved one at the hands of a male perpetrator.
I am extremely grateful to the people who have dedicated their lives to campaigning for real change. I continue to be inspired by the victims who bravely report their cases to the police, by the journalists and editors who choose to tell their stories, and by the families who continue passionately to seek justice on behalf of those who have been silenced. I am also grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—my good friend—with the support of the incredible Karen Ingala  Smith and the Counting Dead Women project, has been able to use today’s debate to painstakingly list the names of the women who have died at the hands of a male abuser over the last 12 months. But it should not be this way. I fear that there are many more names that would sadly join that list if only their deaths were investigated and recorded in the usual way. If we are not clearly and centrally measuring the number of victims, how can we possibly be getting a grip or a steer on prevention?
Colleagues will be aware of the vastly complex issues around the way in which homicides involving females with domestic abuse markers against their name are measured and recorded in this country. There are families up and down the country—and more of them than we might think—who deserve clarity on the circumstances surrounding unexplained or sudden deaths. The situation can only change if more of us speak up on these issues. It has been incredible to hear so many colleagues touch on domestic abuse in their contributions today.
There is clear work that all of us in this House can be doing to support campaigners and grieving families across the country. We can reach out and ask our local police forces for the data. We can push for clear guidance on how police should approach the scene when a woman with domestic abuse markers has died suddenly or unexpectedly. We can legislate to give agencies—from GPs to local authorities to social services—the tools to share information that will allow the creation of a centralised database that has the power to speed up the police response.
We need to start counting women and making women count. The women whose lives have been lost at the hands of an abuser deserve a voice, even when their own has been silenced. I will not stop until I see practical reform. The system has failed these women, and it is our duty and honour to give them their lives in whatever way we can.

Rosie Winterton: Our final Back-Bench speaker is Liz Twist.

Liz Twist: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate.
International Women’s Day is a day to remember and to celebrate, and this year I want to celebrate the wonderful women in trade unions. My union, Unison, has nearly 1 million women among its 1.3 million membership. They are women working in public services, ensuring that our essential services keep going, and they include: nurses, healthcare professionals, healthcare assistants, cleaners and catering staff in our NHS. They have been so vital this year, above all others, and deserve so much more than the 1% pay rise proposed by the Government. There are also the women in local government, energy, schools, colleges, the police and social care, who have been undervalued for too long. I want to say a huge congratulations to our new Unison general secretary, Christina McAnea, who was elected by Unison members as head of Britain’s biggest union. Christina will do an absolutely brilliant job and make a real difference for her members.
I also want to mention some other brilliant Unison organisations and women here in the north-east with whom I work. The brilliant northern women’s network  is headed by Pat Heron, Maria Alberts, Linda Hobson, our regional convenor Nikki Ramanandi, Josie Bird, our national Unison president, and so many others working to fight for what is important to women in work and in society—as well as, of course, our fantastic regional secretary, Clare Williams. There are so many more people I could mention, including in other trade unions, but time does not allow.
Trade unions are still needed by women in dealing with fairness and equality at work, but I want to mention the campaign backed by Unison to create a permanent memorial for an earlier group of women trade unionists—the match girls. Those women and young girls took strike action against the terrible conditions in the Bryant and May match factory in London in 1888. Their action led not only to better conditions for themselves and their fellow workers, but inspired many more workers, male and female, to organise and fight for better and fairer conditions at work. How sad it is to hear that there must be a petition to save the grave of one of the strike leaders, Sarah Chapman. I look forward to marking the 150th anniversary of the match tax protest in April. Perhaps we can also mark the day in this House. This struggle continues today. A survey of Unison female workers, including nurses, teaching assistants and council employees, showed that many feel on the brink of burnout in trying to juggle both work and home commitments.
But today we must also think of Sarah Everard, and my thoughts and prayers go out to her family.

Kirsten Oswald: I knew that I would not be the only woman in this debate who changed what she wanted to speak about because of recent events. The Sarah Everard case feels quite close to home for a lot of people, including me, and my thoughts are with her family.
Looking online last night, I was struck by the scale of many women’s concerns about their experiences of doing mundane, everyday things and feeling unsafe or experiencing harassment or attack. I did not see any women saying that it is fine and they do not feel like that. That is no surprise given the outcomes of the recent UN survey and all we have heard today, and that is really quite depressing.
Of course no woman should have to face this. None of us should have these concerns. We should not fear walking down the streets in the dark. I would like to tell you all that I am scared of nothing. That is pretty much how I try and live my life. I am not sure that it always works, but I do try. I do walk down streets in the dark. I will not be moved from the streets and I will not change my behaviour. But here is the thing: I do feel scared sometimes. I cross the road, I have my keys in my hand, and I think about where the streetlights are and where the dark alleys are. I am aware—vigilant—because, like all women, I have to be, and we all know that. We all have reason to know that, directly and indirectly. We know we need to protect ourselves.
This morning on BBC Radio Scotland, I heard journalist Jane Dougall speaking about her own experience, which was incredibly brave of her. She pointed out that all the calls to be careful and to do this or not do that—the  calls to modify our behaviour—are not right. We need to be able to walk down the street without any of that. She was in her own driveway and, as she said, it does not get much more careful than that. Between that brave interview and the news about Sarah Everard, I have been thinking a lot about what women face when, without consciously thinking about it, we do these calculations about what we need to do to keep safe—all the “Text me when you get in”, “Oh no, I’ll be fine” routine. But sometimes it is not fine at all: the tragedy that Sarah’s family is facing and the huge hole that could be ripped into her family if the worst news comes. I know that feeling will never go away if that is what happens. Sometimes there is no positive end.
A wonderful, vibrant woman that I knew and loved never did make it home. She was just near her own front door, too, going about her business. I cannot adequately explain what that meant and how life-changing it has been for those closest to her, who, I have to say, are extraordinarily brave and strong. I can tell you that the police were, and remain, magnificent, and that my admiration for those left behind is beyond what people could imagine. But that should never happen to anyone.
This issue really matters, and we really need to talk about it more if we want things to change. It is a universal reality that affects women in every country, city, town and village in the world. Women experience low-level and high-level harassment and violence just for catching a bus or walking up the street—and I am not even getting into the issues online that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) described. We are not to blame. We do not need to modify our actions or behaviours. We are not responsible for the actions of men.
Indeed, women do not get attacked because of their actions; they get attacked because of the actions of their attacker. I know that some women are talking about reclaiming the night. So they should—so we should. The solidarity of women in all this has been very powerful, and I think that has everything to do with how recognisable and relatable this all is to women the world over.
I think what I am saying is uncontroversial and straightforward, but it has all been said before and yet here we still are. Hearing the concerns and fears of young women in particular, and knowing the increased vulnerabilities of so many because of covid and the additional challenges for women in minority and marginalised groups, we absolutely need this to be a continued focus for us all.
I am really grateful for strong women leaders such as Nicola Sturgeon, who always raises her voice in support of women—all women—day and daily, pushing back against stereotypes and barriers and making a measurable difference on gender equality in Scotland. I am also grateful for women more locally to me, such as East Renfrewshire councillors Angela Convery, Caroline Bamforth and Annette Ireland, all champions of women in my local community and all committed every day to supporting women in all walks of life—and goodness knows, they have made a huge contribution during covid.
Maybe that is what some of this comes down to. Maybe we need to get away from treating things as women’s issues. They are just issues; it is not a niche thing. Maybe the fears and concerns that we have heard so much about would be so much less of a problem if that was how we looked at the world. But for today, let  us celebrate all women. I am glad of the progress we have made—there is much to be proud of—but I look forward to the day when we have made a good deal more progress.

Marsha de Cordova: I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I am disappointed that the Minister for Women and Equalities is not here to respond. That is no disrespect to the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), but the Minister should be here to respond.
Before I begin, I want to give my thoughts and prayers to the family, friends and loved ones of Sarah Everard and all the victims and survivors of violence against women. From my own personal experience, I know what it is like to walk in the dark feeling frightened, fearful and anxious, and I know that many Members across the House share that experience—in fact, I was not aware that many did, because my biggest fear was that I cannot see very well in the dark. We have so far to go to make our public spaces, both online and offline, safe for women.
Let me begin with the many contributions that we have heard; over 50 Members contributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made a powerful speech, reading out those names. Certainly, we all only hope that, going forward, we do not have to hear such a long list of names being read. Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), spoke about violence against women and girls.
Many Members spoke about the hugely unequal impact that covid has had on women, and I will come on to that. I also want talk about the plight of women across the world, which my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) really shed light on. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), not just for raising the most important points about black maternal health but for her bravery in sharing her own personal experience.
International Women’s Day is a time to celebrate all the gains we have made in the pursuit of women’s equality. I want to pay tribute to many of the brilliant women on whose shoulders I stand here today, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who was elected as the first black female MP over 30 years ago, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and all she has done in introducing the Equality Act and championing the rights of women. The Labour party has been and always will be the party of equality. We introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, the minimum wage laws and laws guarding against discrimination against women. I also want to pay tribute to activists such as the late Olive Morris, a member of the Brixton Black Women’s Group, who went to school in my constituency of Battersea and was a tireless campaigner against racism and sexism. It is a shame that we continue to still have those same fights and struggles today.
This International Women’s Day falls a year into a pandemic that has had huge consequences for women. Issues such as domestic abuse and childcare have been sidelined throughout this year. Pregnant women and new mothers have faced discrimination in the Government’s job retention and self-employment income support schemes. Young women have been more likely to work in sectors shut down, and mothers have picked up more of the unpaid care work and more of the home schooling. Meanwhile, the childcare and social care sectors, in which women are more likely to work, have been hung out to dry. After a decade of austerity and negligence, these sectors are on their knees and are being ignored. Women have been on the frontline of the pandemic in our hospitals, our care homes, our schools and our homes, and yet the Government think that now is the time to give nearly 1 million women on the NHS frontline an effective pay cut. It is shameful.
With gender pay gap reporting suspended for over a year, we have no way of knowing what the cumulative impact of these failures will be. But we do know that black women are still four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women; that over half of victims and survivors of violence against women were turned away from refuges last year because of a lack of funding; that migrant women remain excluded from the Domestic Abuse Bill, with the funding announced falling short of what is needed; and that abuse against women—especially black women—on social media and in the press is going completely unchecked. This week alone, we have seen the Duchess of Sussex vilified by some in the media. The continued denial of racism in the media is unacceptable. Racism is real. It is a lived experience for many women, including myself.
At the Budget last week, we did not see any action taken to tackle the widening inequalities that have been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic. Instead, we saw a delay to the cut in universal credit. We saw a complete failure for disabled women by not applying the £20 uplift to employment and support allowance. We have seen the Chancellor out there doing his bit with his high-vis and hard hat, sending a clear message about the industries he is interested in supporting. All the talk of kickstart, restart and recovery is meaningless for women unless the Government commit to equal opportunities. We need to see them publish data that guarantees that equal numbers of jobs are created for women and men, so that STEM and care are valued equally. I hope that that will be the case, as we run the risk of a two-tier recovery, which will only widen gender inequality even further.
I mentioned the Equality Act earlier, and I want to come back to it. I am concerned that it is being all but ignored by the Government and colleagues, including the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is not here today. There have only been two equality impact assessments published since the beginning of the pandemic, despite this being the biggest public health and economic crisis for a generation. There was no equality impact assessment of the Budget last week. It is a complete failure that these Acts are not being assessed adequately. It is unacceptable that equality guidance is being overlooked and ignored. Can the hon. Member for Lewes confirm whether the Government will finally commit to publishing impact assessments?
We have come a long way, but progress towards meaningful change for women is still too slow. In the light of this week’s events alone, I would like to know what the Government will be doing to address violence against women in public spaces and in the press. Is it not time that misogyny is made a hate crime? Will the Government immediately reinstate reporting on the gender pay gap? Representation and leadership matter. Diversity in decision making matters.

Maria Caulfield: May I start by saying how delighted I am once again to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate? I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their powerful contributions. There were too many to single any out, but it was poignant to have both the Mother and the Father of the House taking part.
While International Women’s Day is an important opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women in the UK and around the world, it is also an opportunity to look at what more needs to be done. This year, covid-19 is the biggest challenge the UK has faced in decades, and everyone across the country has been touched by it in some way. We have heard this afternoon many examples of extraordinary women who have been at the forefront of the fight against this virus, including those working in the NHS to keep us safe, many of whom I have had the privilege to work alongside on the covid wards during this period. I pay tribute to them for their incredible efforts, bravery and strength.
The United Nations theme for International Women’s Day this year centres on women’s leadership and the importance of securing an equal future in a covid-19 world. We cannot underestimate the importance of this approach as we build back better following what has been a challenging year for many. The economic impact of the past year is complex and emerging, but as the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund have all recognised, our economic response is making a difference. It is saving jobs, keeping businesses afloat and supporting people’s incomes.
In order to protect jobs for women, who are more likely to be furloughed, the Government have rolled out unprecedented levels of support, particularly in crucial sectors such as retail and hospitality, which employ high numbers of women and those from ethnic minorities and younger people, and the self-employment income support scheme has provided support for many of the 1.7 million self-employed women in the UK. As of 31 January, the scheme has received nearly 2.1 million claims from self-employed women across the three rounds of grants.
Despite the progress in changing the stereotypical views of the role of women at work, evidence shows that during the pandemic many women have been pressured into balancing work with childcare and home schooling. To help with that, the Government have enabled employers to furlough parents who are unable to work due to the closure of schools, nurseries and childcare services. I know that many will want to welcome and thank those who have worked so hard for the safe reopening of schools this week.
On the theme of women’s leadership in the covid world, we have seen some real-life heroines in the STEM sector, such as Kate Bingham, chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, and Professor Sarah Gilbert, who devised the Oxford vaccine. These women have quite literally saved lives, saved our economy and, quite frankly, saved our way of life, and they are role models for the next generation of women.
If we want to inspire young women, it is vital that we start early, and that is why we continue to encourage girls to take STEM subjects at school, college and university. While there is work to be done, there has been a 31% increase in entries by girls to STEM A-levels in England in the past 10 years.
The issue of violence against women has featured heavily in this debate, and the last 48 hours have hit home for all of us. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) put it so well, today we are all Sarah. My prayers and thoughts are with her and her family at this time.
Women and girls are still suffering from unacceptable violence. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), whose contribution has, unfortunately, become a sombre but important tradition in this House. Today she read out the names of women killed by men in the last year. Sadly, her list seems much longer than it was last year. I hope she does not take this the wrong way, but I look forward to a year when she is unable to make a contribution to this debate.
The home should be a place of safety and comfort but, for many, it is not. During this pandemic, the Government have listened to charities and the domestic abuse commissioner, and in last week’s Budget, we announced an additional £19 million of funding to tackle domestic abuse, with £4.2 million for a two-year pilot project of respite rooms to provide specialist support for vulnerable homeless women. The landmark Domestic Abuse Bill has been on Report in the House of Lords this week. It is on track to receive Royal Assent by the end of April, and we will publish our new tackling violence against women and girls strategy in the spring. This will help to better target perpetrators and support women in relation to these crimes.
The Government takes all forms of harassment extremely seriously, whether it is in the workplace, in the home or on the street, and I pay tribute to those across government, up and down the country, working to make the UK a safer place for women. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, harassment is too regular an experience for women. I am inspired by many young women campaigning on these vital issues. In particular, I want to pay tribute to my constituent, Maya Tutton, and the Our Streets Now campaign, who are working hard to raise the issue of street harassment and the impact that it is having on the daily lives of younger women across this country. The tragic news of Sarah Everard this week emphasises their point, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today, reinforcing the Government’s commitment to protecting women and girls from violence and harassment.
It is not just physical abuse that women have faced during the pandemic. We know that more people have spent time online and, although there have been many benefits to this, there has of course been greater risk of harm. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn  (Sara Britcliffe) said so eloquently how many female MPs—if not all of us—know only too well about the reality of online abuse and the constant toll of negative comments, which people would never be brave enough to say to someone’s face. Online abuse is unacceptable and our approach will make platforms responsible for tackling abuse online, including anonymous abuse, while protecting the rights of freedom of expression.
There is also more to do to improve the lives of women and girls internationally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) emphasised. One of our most visible commitments to this is ensuring that there are 12 years of quality education for girls around the world. This is a transformational development. Having volunteered in Rwanda on Project Umubano, teaching English in schools, I have seen at first hand the difference that education makes to women. There are perhaps a few Rwandan women speaking English right now with a slight cockney twist, thanks to my effort. Education is the key to breaking down barriers for women. In the last 10 years, the UK has supported at least 15.6 million children in gaining a decent education, over half of whom are girls.
In conclusion, I again thank all those who have contributed to this debate this afternoon and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for securing this debate.

Maria Miller: This is probably the first time that two Marias have followed each other in a debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am very glad about that. This debate comes at the end of a week of events organised by the all-party group on women in Parliament marking International Women’s Day, with fantastic support from Mr Speaker, many right hon. and hon. Members, the House service, the Parliamentary Archives, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Fawcett Society and UN Women. This has been the first time that we have organised events in this way, but I do not think it will be the last. I also thank the APPG’s  secretariat, the Fawcett Society and my parliamentary staff—particularly Rachel Edwards, for her extraordinary commitment to organising this week’s programme.
In a world where gender equality issues are so entrenched, it is right that we should spend some time thinking about how we can do things better. I thank every one of the 67 colleagues who wanted to contribute today, many of whom were not able to speak. Perhaps next year we should have a new tradition: a full-day debate to reflect the overwhelming support, to consider the issues that affect women’s equality and to mark International Women’s Day here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, at the heart of our Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 7 and 8, on the Church of England measures, together.
Ordered,
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Diocesan Boards of Education Measure (HC 1259), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Cathedrals Measure (HC 1260), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(David Duguid.)

Electoral Commission

Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(David Duguid.)

Hon. Members:: Object.

Concussion in Sport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Chris Bryant: I am good at clearing the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me start with a couple of quotations:
“I felt like there was a rage inside me boiling up and I just needed to get it out. On one occasion, I lit the grill and forgot about it, even though my young child was in the kitchen. When the burning started, it was only when my wife turned up that I realised. When I went out on my bike, I got completely lost, even though it was a journey I have done many times.”
Somebody else said about her father:
“He started to ask: ‘When am I going to get this sorted? When is someone going to fix my head?’”.
The truth is that brain injury is a hidden epidemic in this country. We are used to talking about a pandemic at the moment, but there is a hidden epidemic. It is hidden because lots of people have a brain injury and we would never know. In some cases, yes, there is an evident scar from an operation or road traffic accident, but in many cases the damage is inside the brain and is not visible to anybody. Sometimes, the person in front of us in the queue who is slurring is not actually drunk at all, but has had a brain injury. Our judgmentalism may make that moment even worse for them.
Attitudes have changed considerably in recent  years. I remember watching rugby matches in which the commentators used to sort of celebrate the big clashes, when head hit head or boot hit head. I was so proud when in the Six Nations rugby matches this year every single commentator was saying, “I’m sorry, but that tackle is too high”, or, “That’s a really dangerous injury. I hope somebody is looking at that. Isn’t it great that the player’s being taken off the field?”
In the past, there used to be so much: “Play up, play up, play on—play the game!” Or it was: “You’ve got to stay on the pitch whatever, because you’ve been selected and you want to show that you’re a man”—I will talk about the issues facing women in a few moments. There was almost a celebration of that concept of being punch-drunk in rugby, and people would laugh at players who were clearly groggy and unsteady on their feet on the rugby pitch or the football pitch. Thank goodness that a lot of that has changed. The honest truth is that it has changed in very recent years—it is only three or four years ago that commentators were sort of relishing these big fights.
I am really proud that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee started an inquiry into concussion in sport. It feels like some of us have been making these arguments in the House for a long time. This week, Dr Willie Stewart laid bare some of the problems. He said of rugby that one player in every match suffers a brain injury. In every single match that we watch, somebody suffers a brain injury, and the effects of that may last for many years of their life.
“Chronic traumatic encephalopathy” is one of the ways they describe it. This is a horrible image, but it was given to me by Willie Stewart originally: basically, we can imagine the brain as being like a wet sponge in a hard bucket, and when it is smashed against something else, the sponge moves with it, of course, and all the  parts of the sponge get stretched, and sometimes they get stretched out so much that they never get back to normal.
Willie Stewart also said that
“the only thing that connects football to American football to boxing to rugby to wrestling…is head impact and head-injury exposure.”
He said that neurodegenerative disease and dementia
“was recorded on the death certificate in about 20% of our former footballers”,
compared with 6% of the population control: 20% versus 6%. I am not sure how much more evidence we need that concussion in sport is doing immense damage to players. In other words, the beautiful game is damaging brains and killing players. Nobby Stiles, Jack Charlton, Sir Bobby Charlton—I think five members of the 1966 team have now been diagnosed with early onset dementia of one kind or another.
This is not just about dementia. Post-concussion syndrome comes in many different forms. Some individuals have diminutive cognitive functioning. They have difficulty remembering things and do not understand why. Others have diminished inhibition, and a sense of rage—I referred to that earlier—or sexual inappropriateness. Those different elements of diminished inhibition also come with diminished executive function, such as an inability to turn up on time, or sometimes chronic fatigue. I do not mean just feeling tired or lazy. Some people call it brain-drain, when every ounce of energy that should be in someone’s Duracell battery has gone. There is nothing left; they are completely running on empty and cannot get themselves out of bed.
Others suffer from depression, anxiety, or horrific mood swings that have a terrible effect on their relationships with loved ones, family members and children. People start to fear what they might do to their children, and there is the horrible effect that that has on someone’s relationship with a wife, husband or partner. It causes terrible family distress.
I have spoken to players and their partners who are desperate to support the person through this, but they do not know how. They do not have the skills. Indeed, they never thought they would need them, as the person involved was so fit—the epitome of health—and to see them in that condition is terribly depressing. Dementia and many of these conditions affect many families, regardless of sports, but they are strongly felt in the sporting community. There is also second impact syndrome, perhaps the most notable instance of which was Ben Robinson in 2013. A young Irish lad, 14 years of age, had a second concussion having gone back on to play. He died later that day.
This is not just about men, although a lot of the research done so far is about elite players who are men. That needs to change. We need to do far more research into the effects of concussion on women, not least because in the United States of America more work has been done because of legal cases. If we consider the incidence of these problems per 1,000 athlete exposures—stick with me—as they call it, for women in soccer the rate is 0.54, whereas for men it is 0.26. In other words, it is 100% higher for women. Similarly, for lacrosse the figure is 0.3 per 1,000 athlete exposures for men, and 0.45 for women, which is 50% greater.
I suspect we would find all those figures writ large across football in the UK and for women’s sports, and we need to do that work. For instance, lots of work has been done on men’s boxing, and one reason why people changed the rules on wearing headguards is that they discovered that there tended to be more concussions with headguards than without, which was counterintuitive. That research was done on men, but there is still no data for women at all. It is shameful.
It is not just about adults, either. Figures I saw today show that 40,000 children go to hospital every year with a brain injury. That is significantly more children than present in hospital with autism, yet we know far more about autism in children than about brain injury in children.
The sporting bodies have repeatedly failed the people they should be there, as employers, to protect. Jeff Astle died in 2002 and the coroner decided that he had died of an industrial disease. He was 59—my age. On 15 October 2020, the coroner decided exactly the same in the case of Alan Jarvis; another footballer and the same verdict—death by industrial disease. What has happened in between? To be honest, from the football authorities, next to nothing: a lot of hand wringing, moaning and saying, “Yes, we’ll do more research; we’re committed to funding more research”, but there has been precious little action.
In UEFA matches, there is still only three minutes for an assessment. A proper brain injury assessment cannot be done in three minutes; 10 minutes would be far more sensible. A team doctor still does the assessment. It should not be the team doctor but an independent medic who does it. Of course, the team doctor wants the player to go back on. The Minister will rightly say that the UK is trialling substitution, but only five countries out of 211 have decided to trial it—five out of 211. Not even all the sports organisations in Europe are doing it. That is a disgrace. By now, substitution should not be a trial, but fully in place.
There is no independent medic sitting on the side of the pitch, watching the match and deciding, “Sorry, that person’s had a brain injury. Ref, you probably didn’t spot it, Coach, you probably didn’t spot it, but I did. That person’s coming off because we’ve got to do an assessment.” It is just basic if we really want to protect the players.
How many times must I hear, “Oh, but the ball is much lighter these days”? Actually, the ball is exactly the same weight as a leather ball. The leather balls gathered more water, so they got a bit heavier, but if we do the physics, the real issue is the speed of the ball. The ball probably travels faster than it did in the past, which means that we probably have more of a problem with heading the ball than we had in the past. We should listen to the research that has been done and implement its recommendations.
Far too much has been left to charities such as Headway and Head for Change, which has just started up and has as ambassadors James Haskell, Geraint Thomas, Inoke Afeaki, Lewis Moody and me; I do not look quite as good in the pictures on the website. There comes a point when if people constantly obfuscate, delay, refuse to act and demand more evidence before acting, they are complicit in the harm that is being done. I have come to the conclusion that football is simply a disgrace.
It is great to see the Minister here today, not least because I know he has been taking some action recently. He has covered several roundtables online. I think I know everybody who has been on his calls. It is great to see that work happening. I was a bit irritated with Leader of the House when I asked him about the matter a few weeks ago because he said that action was for the sporting bodies to take. I know that the Government, through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, have co-ordinated work between different Departments, which is good. I had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) earlier today, which was really positive.
As I have argued for many years, I want the Government to deal with the matter not in little silos, but through one whole co-ordinated effort because it affects the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—indeed, there is hardly a Department it does not affect. We must therefore tackle it in a co-ordinated way. I am grateful that the Government are doing that. I hope the Minister will be able to say that they will be reporting back to the House at some point on those joint ministerial meetings, because I think they would receive a very strong welcome across the House.
However, I think the Government will still have to go further. If we really want shared protocols on concussion in sport that are shared across all sports at elite, junior and grassroots level for both men and women, that will only really happen with real pushing from the Government —and that means the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. We have to have shared protocols. I know sports are different, with elements that might play out differently, but rugby, football, cycling, hockey, ice hockey, boxing and wrestling all need shared protocols. Quite often, a child in particular will play several sports. They will not understand why there is one set of rules when they play netball and a completely different set of rules when they play baseball, basketball, soccer or whatever. There has to be a shared set of protocols with the same language used in all sports, and that will only happen if it comes from the Government.
I am a Welsh MP. The Minister sent me a text—I hope I am not breaking a confidence—to say that I have to remember that some of this is devolved. I am fully aware of that, but because Wales plays England at rugby in particular—the Minister may not want to remember that fact—it is important that we share the protocols across the whole of the UK. I want a UK-wide approach if we can possibly achieve that. If the Minister were to knock on that door in Wales, I believe he would receive a socially distanced welcome.
Physical education staff in schools and coaches really need a full understanding of concussion. There are still far too many people who simply do not understand it. They think it is only a concussion if you have been knocked out. Actually, being knocked out is a particular form of concussion where a particular part of the brain is affected. However, you might have several concussions without being out at all. That is why it is really important that a better understanding is shared across all PE teachers and coaches.
On legislation, I am always very reluctant to suggest that we need to legislate, but I just note that in  the United States of America between 2009 and 2015,   all 50 States and the District of Columbia introduced legislation on concussion in sport primarily, but on brain injury in general. The United States of America has a traumatic brain injury Act—we still do not—which lays down all sorts of different elements. It may be that if sporting bodies are not prepared to act, we will have to consider legislation in this field.
There are arguments for legislation in other aspects. There is a Bill going through the House of Lords at the moment to which Lord Ramsbotham, I think, has been tabling amendments this week that insist women who have been subject to a brain injury as part of domestic abuse will be guaranteed a proper test and be screened for brain injury. Women who go to prison will, when they first arrive in prison, all be screened for brain injury as well. I suspect we also need legislation on the treatment of veterans to provide for proper research programmes and for the protection of prisoners.
I warmly welcome the fact that the Select Committee is doing its work and the Government are doing their work, but I suspect that it is still woefully under-resourced. I do not know whether the Select Committee will produce a report or whether it is having another day of evidence, but I think the time is long past when we need a royal commission on brain injury as a whole and concussion in sport in particular, so that all the evidence can be presented, analysed and considered in a quasi-judicial way and we end up protecting people.
I end with this. Sport is good for us. I have no desire to stop people taking part in sport. I want more people to take part in sport. I would like myself to take part in more sport. Sport often involves risks, of course it does, but one player said this to me—I apologise for the language, which is not my language:
“I knew it would bugger up my body. I had no idea it would bugger up my brain.”
That is the bit here that matters and that we have to change. I am not interested in cotton wool—I do not want to mollycoddle anybody—but this is what Hayley McQueen, the sports presenter, said about her dad, Gordon McQueen, the ex-Man United player:
“I can’t believe football, the thing that gave him so much love, has cruelly taken a lot away from us.”
We do not have to lose the good. We can do the good.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this important debate. I know—he has just illustrated this—how deeply he is concerned about the welfare of sportspeople and this issue. I greatly appreciate the care and commitment he has shown in regard to concussion and brain injury in the sporting sector and beyond over many, many years. He has spoken eloquently yet again today, showing great empathy and emotion. I have indeed interacted with many people he has interacted with over a much longer period than I have, and the stories I hear are absolutely heart-rending.
The fact that this debate is taking place is testament to the hon. Gentleman’s energy in chairing the all- party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury.   The subject is getting increasing attention across the House and beyond, and I genuinely give him and the APPG credit for highlighting it.
Sports national governing bodies are rightly responsible for the regulation of their sports, and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from serious injuries. We look to individual sports to take primary responsibility for the safety of their participants, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it must go beyond that, and that the Government have a responsibility too.
I am pleased to acknowledge that positive progress has been made in recent years on this issue, and I am sure it will continue to be made. The Rugby Football Union has been researching head injury in the UK for the last 20 years. Its extensive Headcase education programme, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has helped increase understanding of concussion prevention and management. The British Horseracing Authority has also made extensive efforts to improve its concussion management protocols.
In football, although there is clearly more to do, I welcome the Football Association’s introduction of two concussion substitutes per FA cup match earlier this year. I am also glad to see that the Premier League started trailing the use of concussion substitutes last month, as the hon. Gentleman also highlighted—we should have shared a speech. Indeed, England is one of only five out of more than 200 countries to trial the new International Football Association Board concussion protocols. I am hopeful that far more countries will follow our lead. We can be proud that we are leading, but there are clearly many more countries to follow.
The FA also issued guidelines last year to help prevent children aged 11 and under from being taught to head footballs during training in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not just national governing bodies contributing to improvements in player safety. Last November, the Professional Footballers’ Association announced that it would set up a dedicated taskforce to investigate further the issue of brain injury diseases in football, and two independently led research studies supported by the FA are currently examining former professional players for early signs of deteriorating cognitive function. Those are demonstrably good steps across sports, but there is clearly more to do. That will be a familiar theme.
Concussions are notoriously difficult to identify.  It is important to note that about 10%—but only  about 10%—of reported concussions involve a loss of consciousness, so they are not always readily apparent and the player’s injuries may be far more serious than they appear at the time. Player safety is the No. 1 concern for sport. Much more work is needed to ensure that robust measures are in place to reduce risk and improve the diagnosis and management of sport-related concussion at all levels of sport.
That is why the Secretary of State and I hosted two roundtables on concussion in sport last month. I am grateful to the current and former sportspeople who attended the first roundtable. There were many heartfelt contributions to the discussion, which gave valuable insight into the experience of those who have suffered the consequences of brain injury directly or via loved ones. Attendees acknowledged that sports were now taking concussion far more seriously and players were  now more likely to admit to being concussed, but there are still concerns about culture, promoting safety for children, differences between the amateur and professional levels and levels of education among players, whether that is advanced education or education and awareness on the pitch when an injury happens and, indeed, all the way to A&E and so on. There are many areas to investigate.
The second roundtable we had involved mainly national governing bodies and academics who focus on this area. The Secretary of State and I wanted to further understand what work is under way, what research is being undertaken and what more can be done. Chief executives and medical officers from various contact sports attended, along with academics. We also had in attendance representatives from the Department for Education and NHS England, and I am grateful again for those contributions.
We are in the early stages of these discussions, and it is clear that the Government have an important convening role to play here, and perhaps more. Collaboration on best practice, research and concussion protocols must be a priority for sports governing bodies, because one of the things that struck me is that while a lot of work is being done and a lot of research is being undertaken, I was not necessarily convinced there was a lot of sharing of that information and research. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, collaboration is key to moving forward here. We must also ensure that players are not in a position to overrule doctors on medical issues.

Chris Bryant: One of my anxieties is that some sports are nervous about sharing because they think that there are legal cases coming, and they do not want to reveal their hand. We need to create a space in which they can do that with safe harbour.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. He may well be right. Of course, as soon as we get into the area of litigation, I am not really able to say much more. But on the principle of encouraging the sharing of information and data wherever possible, he is absolutely right, and we will look at what role we can play in encouraging that. That is a really important point.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fact that there is lots of research on men but very little on women. We brought that up in the roundtable. We were proactively saying, “Do you have any research? Is there anything more on women?” I think there was a recognition that there is far more work to be done there, but, of  course, women suffer injuries as much as men do. In fact, the physiology is perhaps not as well understood, and I therefore appeal to all stakeholders to particularly focus on that area.
We are currently reflecting on the ways that we can move forward on the issues raised in these discussions, and we plan further work and further discussions. The hon. Gentleman is right to sound slightly frustrated—there are lots of discussions, but we do intend to act. I do not know what the conclusions of the work we are doing will be, but I do want to see action. I do not want this to just be a talking shop and ongoing discussions. I also welcome, as he did, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry, which I hope will add valuable evidence to this debate.
I know that sports want to make progress in this area. It is in their best interests to improve safety for players and, indeed, everybody involved in sport as much as possible. As I said, we want tangible actions. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the further work that is happening across Government on the issue of brain injury. I was delighted to attend a meeting convened by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for Care. We will continue that work across Government, and  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be involved. I invite ongoing discussions with him; in fact, I am due to meet him and the APPG shortly.
Last week I met a non-governmental organisation, Podium Analytics, which is starting to carry out more important research in this area, particularly focused on under-18s, alongside work and collaboration with the Department for Education. That is important, and that work will continue. Collaboration between sports, player associations, NGOs and others is clearly important, and we want to ensure that it continues and progresses.
The importance of sport has come even more into focus in the last year. We want to redouble our efforts to ensure that progress is made, and I am determined to play my part. I firmly believe that we need to continue to work together in driving forward research and continuing to improve player safety and welfare at all levels of sport. Everyone involved has a love for their sport, and good work has already been done, but there is more to do. We will do everything we can to ensure that all reasonable steps are being taken on safety and to protect British sport from concerns both now and in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Chris Loder


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Chris Loder


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Antony Higginbotham


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Chris Loder


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore